1986 PLP 495 (MLD)

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.77 of 1968, decided on 28‑5‑1969, by which the allotment to the extent of the claim of each of the writ petitioners allowed to be adjusted according to their entitlement.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the apple ant is that in view of the previous dismissal of the respondents' Writ Petition No.643 of 1965 on 10‑12‑1965, they had no right to maintain the Constitutional petition, out of which the resent appeal has arisen.

3. The relevant facts for the dispose of this appeal are that Mehr Shah, respondent No.2, and nine others were displaced persons from India. They were made temporary allotment. In due course, their claims were verified. However, the land in their temporary allotment was confirmed to Fazal Dad Khan, father of the appellant, by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) on 10‑10‑1957. Dissatisfied with this order, the temporary allottees filed separate appeals which were disposed of together by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Narowal, who remanded the case for fresh decision with certain directions, vide order dated 27‑2‑1958. In pursuance of this, the Border Area Committee on 15‑10‑1963 confirmed an area of 28 Kanals 11 Marlas in favour of Mehr Shah and cancelled the same from the Khata of Rahim Dad. Representation was made before the Border Area Committee in which a report was called for from the Tehsildar, who said that "Mehr Shah had insisted that the land should be allotted to him in accordance with his choice in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 15‑10‑1963 and that the balance of the unsettled units held by all .the petitioners (i.e. to say‑ the temporary allottees) should be adjusted out of the land allotted to the respondents (Fazal Dad etc.) in preference to them". The Border Area Committee on 3‑3‑1965 reiterated its previous order dated 15‑10‑1963. The temporary allottees filed Writ Petition No.643 of 1965 which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on 10‑12‑1965. The temporary allottees pursued their remedy before the Border Area Committee. On 17‑6‑1967, the Border Area Committee passed an order to the effect that the land in the temporary allotment of the then petitioners, the present respondents, which was confirmed to the then respondent on his Khata, should be restored to the temporary allottees and Fazal Dad respondent should be allotted some other alternative land. Later on, on 21‑8‑1967, the Border Area Committee decided to review this order and directed that according to the order dated 27‑2‑1958 passed by the D.R.C. (L), all the temporary allottees were at best entitled to 96 units only. This order of the Border Area Committee dated 21‑8‑1967 was challenged through Writ Petition No.77 of 1968 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge with a finding that a perusal of the order of the D.R.C. (L) showed that although it was mentioned that the temporary allottees had yet to secure an area of 96 units under the provisional permanent allotment, but the operative part of the order was that "I accept all the appeals, set aside the order of the A.R.C. (L) with the direction that each appellant should be given back the area to the extent of his claim according to his choice from his temporary allotment confirmed to the respondent. The area so cancelled from the confirmed allotment of the respondent should be allotted to him from some other land available in the village." The learned Single Judge was of the view that under the remand order the temporary allottees were entitled to permanent allotment of the land under their temporary allotment according to the extent of their, entitlement. This was perfectly a correct interpretation of the order of the D.R.C. (Land is in accordance with law, because a temporary allotee has always been held entitled to the confirmation of the area under his temporary allotment to the extent of his entitlement.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents did not have any claim more than 96 units, is neither here nor there because the order passed in pursuance of the remand order by the Border Area Committee was to the following effect:‑‑ This was quite correct. This order of the Border Area Committee dated 17‑6‑1967 cancelling the allotment from the name of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellant and allowing the land to the temporary allottees could not have been reviewed either by the Border Area Committee and when it had passed the order dated 21‑8‑1967, it acted without jurisdiction. Besides that, in the order of the D . R . C . (L) remanding the case he, had although stated in the statement of facts that "all the appellants have yet to secure an area of 96 units under the provisional permanent allotment", but the operative part of the order was with the direction that the temporary allottees be made allotment according to their entitlement.

5. In view of what as been stated above, the order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct and calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. A. A. Appeal dismissed.