2002 PLP 2878 (YLR)

7. So far as Writ Petition No. 13947 of 1999 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the suit property was allotted in favour of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani who was issued a PTD by the. Settlement Department and later on the same was purchased from him by the father of the present petitioners, that the property, a subject‑matter of Writ Petition No.13948 of 1999 was purchased by Mst. Khushnuma Begum, mother of the petitioners in an open auction and consequently PTD was issued to her by the concerned Department, that as the properties, subject‑matter of the instant writ petitioners have been purchased by the father and mother of the petitioners and have also devolved upon them upon the death of their parents, so they have become owners of the same, that they approached the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent for mutating the suit properties in their favour but their requests have been declined vide orders dated 13‑7‑1999, referred above, that order of District Collector/Deputy Commissioner. Faisalabad/respondent is not warranted by law with particular reference to notification issued by the Colonies Department dated 12‑6‑1988, that it has clearly been stated in the notification dated 12‑6‑1988 that persons holding genuine and valid Permanent Transfer Deeds (in the case of urban areas or in whose case valid allotment orders exist in Register RL‑II (in case or rural areas) in respect of evacuee land (now State Land) and which were finalized prior to 3‑1‑1958 they may be allowed to acquire proprietary rights for such land provided they fulfil the conditions laid. down under sub‑paras. (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of the said notification, that in the instant ; case the petitioners have fulfilled the requirements as enumerated in sub‑paras. (a) to (e) of paragraph No.1 of said notification dated 12‑6‑1988, that admittedly as per report of the District Collector; Faisalabad/respondent dated 13‑7-1999 it is established that property, subject‑matter of Writ Petition No.13947 of 1999, was transferred to Abdul Hamid son of Imam Din by the Settlement Commissioner on 22‑1‑1960 and this transfer was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7‑11‑1960. Later on Abdul Hamid surrendered his half share in favour of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani and a PTD was issued on 9‑1‑1964 to Abdul Hameed and Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani, that Rana Tauseef Ali Khan, the predecessor in interest of petitioners purchased share of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani on 12‑12‑1973 through registered sale‑deed No.12398. It is further observed by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent that said PTD has not been cancelled so far and there is no litigation pending regarding said property, that similar is the position with regard to property subject‑matter of Writ Petition No. 13948 of 1999, that the reports dated 13‑7‑1999 clearly show that the Permanent Transfer Deeds issued by the Settlement Department were genuine documents and no litigation was pending in respect of said properties, that, similarly the matter came up for adjudication in Writ Petition No.5494 of 1987 which was disposed of on 20‑6‑1990 whereby a reference in paragraph No.15 was made to notification dated 12‑6‑1988 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department. It was held that the date of 3rd January, 1958, mentioned in the notification is relateable only to the allotment orders in respect of rural areas and by no stretch of reasoning it can relate to the PTDs which are obviously issued after the promulgation of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, that as such the target date of 3rd January, 1958 given in the notification dated 12‑6‑1988 is not applicable in the instant case as the PTDs in the instant case have been issued after the said date i.e. 3rd January, 1958, that it has also been held in the said Writ Petition that if the concerned persons approached the relevant authority, it would examine their case in the light of notification and if the authority finds that PTDs issued up to the date of notification have been issued in accordance with the conditions mentioned therein, they may be allowed to retain/acquire the proprietary rights in the disputed property, that it is evident from the report of District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent that PTDs have been issued in accordance with law and the said transfer orders do not suffer from any illegality, that as such the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent was not justified in declining the request of the petitioners to mutate the suit property in their favour. He thus submits that both the writ petitions be accepted and the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent be directed to mutate the properties in their favour, in the Revenue Record.

8. Conversely, the impugned orders dated 13‑7‑1999 passed by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent in both the writ petitions have been supported by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General.

9. The only point which requires determination is if the properties involved in these writ petitions, were available for allotment by the Settlement Department and have rightly been transferred and purchased in open auction and later on have been alienated and devolved upon the petitioners.

10. The stand of the petitioners is that properties involved in these writ petitions were available with the Settlement Department at the time of its, allotment as such have rightly been allotted to the original allottees and thereafter have been purchased by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. Conversely, the stand of the respondent is that properties involved in these writ petitions did not form the part of Compensation Pool at the time of issuance of PTDs as the status of the properties was changed as State Land on 3‑1‑1958 due to general exchange.

11. According to the petitioners version, the properties in question could not be exchanged for State Land and as such were available with the Settlement Department for alienation and have rightly been alienated to the respective transferees. Since the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties hinge on the notification dated 12‑6‑1988, so the said notification is reproduced as under:‑‑ COLONIES DEPARTMENT. Lahore, dated 12th June, 1988. No.186‑88/1316‑CIV Whereas certain areas of State Land situated in the District of Faisalabad were exchanged with former evacuee land around city of Faisalabad in the interest of urban development and the said exchange was approved by the Government of Pakistan under section 25 (2) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (XII of 1957), vide Ministry of Rehabilitation Letter No.F.21(6)/57‑P.II, dated 3rd January, 1958; And Whereas it subsequently transpired that for some of the area so, exchanged, claim holders had been given permanent transfer deeds/allotment orders, as the case may be, against consideration received by the Settlement Department, Government of Pakistan or in satisfaction of verified claims (urban or rural), under the repealed Settlement Laws, prior to 3rd January 1958. It was, therefore, considered that it would cause hardship to dispossess such persons from the aforesaid land which had since become State Land; Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by section 10 of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912 (V of 1912), the Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department is pleased to issue the following terms and conditions for the disposal of the above mentioned category of State Land:‑‑‑

1. Persons holding genuine and valid Permanent Transfer Deeds (in the case of urban area) or in whose case valid allotment orders exist in Register L.R.II (in case of rural area) in respect of the evacuee land (now State Land), as mentioned above, and which were finalized prior to 3rd January, 1958, may be allowed to acquire proprietary rights for such land provided: (a) he/they satisfy the District Collector, Faisalabad about the validity/authenticity of his/their PTDs/allotment orders and that these are still intact; (b) no litigation is pending in any Court about the land in question; (c) final payment of price of the Settlement Department/adjustment of claim is proved from the record; (d) no other Government dues including Settlement fee etc. are payable by the grantee; (e) he/they is/are in possession of the land in question.

2. In case the Distinct Collector is satisfied about the above conditions he will record and issue an order of transfer of such property in the form at Annexure `A'. ASAD ALI SHAH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

12. It is, evident from paragraph No. 1 of the notification that persons holding genuine and valid Permanent Transfer Deeds may be allowed to acquire proprietary rights for such land if the same had been finalized prior to 3‑1‑1958, provided they fall within the ambit of sub‑paras. (a) to (e) of paragraph No.

1. The target date given in this notification is 3‑1‑1958. In the instant case the property involved in instant writ petition was allotted to Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani on 17‑1‑1‑1960 whereas the property, subject -matter of writ petition No. 13948 of 1999 was purchased by Mst. Khushnuma Begum in an open auction and was confirmed on 30‑1‑1969. Thus the properties involved in the instant writ petitions had been transferred after the target date i.e. 3‑1‑1958 given in the said notification. This point came up for determination in writ petition No.5494 of 1987 and it has been observed in paragraph No. 15 of the said writ petition that the date of 3rd January 1958, mentioned in the notification is relatable only to the allotment orders in respect of rural areas and by no stretch of reasoning it can relate to the PTDs which were obviously issued after the promulgation of Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 it is under these circumstances that it was observed/held in the said writ petition that this being the situation relevant authority, if approached by the aggrieved persons, should examine their cases in the light of afore‑said notification and in case, it finds that they were issued the PTDs validly up to the date of notification and they satisfy other conditions mentioned therein, they may be allowed to acquire the proprietary rights in the respective properties. Thus it is evident from the order dated 20‑6‑1960 passed in Writ Petition No.5494 of 1987 that if the PTDs have been issued by competent Authorities are valid up to the date of notification i.e. 12‑6‑1988 then in that case they may be allowed to retain/acquire the proprietary rights in the properties. In the instant case PTD in favour of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani was issued on. 17‑11‑1960 in respect of Property bearing No.P‑53 described in paragraph No.1 of instant writ petition. Similarly property bearing Plot No. P.25/2, subject‑matter of Writ Petition No. 13948 of 1999 was purchased by Mst. Khushnuma Begum in an open auction on 30‑1‑1969. Now both the PTDs in favour of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani as well as Mst. Khushnuma Begum have been found to be genuine documents as per report of the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent dated 13‑7‑1999. He has held in the respective orders that PTD in respect of each property has been issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the same has not been cancelled so far. He has further held that no litigation is pending regarding properties involved in the writ petitions and the same are in possession of the petitioners. Thus the case of the petitioners stands fully covered by the notification dated 12‑6‑1988 and as such they are entitled to acquire proprietary rights in respect of properties in question.

13. It may be mentioned here that the main stand of the respondents is that as the land measuring 5235 acres was exchanged with State Land measuring 7150 acres on 3‑1‑1958 and the properties involved in these writ petitions were part and parcel of the agricultural land exchanged with State Land, so this could not form part and parcel of Compensation Pool and as such were not available with the Settlement Department for its disposal. Even if this contention is accepted as correct, it does not mean that the properties which had bet‑n disposed of by the Settlement Department prior to 12‑6‑1988 could, not be acquired by the vendees. The only restriction on such alienation is that their PTDs must be genuine documents as held in sub‑paras. (a) to (e) of paragraph No. 1 of notification dated 12‑6‑1988, referred above. Now if' the properties purchased by the petitioners are examined on the touch stone given in sub‑paras. (a) to (e) of paragraph No.1 of notification dated 12‑6‑1988 it is established that the said PTDs are genuine documents and have been issued by the competent Authorities. This contention of the petitioners stands admitted by the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent in the parawise comments dated 13‑7‑1999 filed in the instant writ petition as well as in Writ Petition No.13948 of 1999. This being the factual and legal position, it was not open to the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad/respondent to refuse to enter mutation of alienation in the Revenue Record, in favour of the petitioners, in respect of properties, subject‑matter, of the instant writ petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert this legal and factual position and has simply raised the objection that as the properties in question were not available with the Settlement Department on 3‑1‑1958 have been exchanged for State Land, sty the PTDs issued in favour of Gohar Hussain Khan Durrani and Mst. Khushnuma Begum are not genuine documents. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondent stands, rebutted by the respondent/District, Collector/Deputy Commissioner; Faisalabad who has held in the comments submitted it these writ petitions that these PTDs hack rightly been issued by the competent Authority, and the same are intact till today` and no litigation is pending in respect of said PTDs.

14. For what has been stated above, it is proved that properties have rightly been transferred and subsequently purchased/transferred in favour off the petitioners in accordance with, law. Accordingly writ petitions are accepted and properties are deleted from the exchange Lands and the respondent is directed to mutate the properties in favour of the petitioners in the Revenue Record. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z‑82/L Petition allowed.