P L D 1991 Supreme Court 702 (PLP)

??????????? MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑In these appeals leave to appeal was granted on noticing the facts and point involved therein as under:‑ ??????????? The appellants are the claimant displaced persons and on migration to Pakistan were settled in Chak No.151/G.B. Tehsil (now district) Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur. Their claim (duly verified) was transferred to Toba Tek Singh and in partial satisfaction of their claim allotments were made to them in the said Chak on 27‑4‑1954 and 3‑6‑1955 but about 545 units of the appellants' claim still remained unsatisfied and were pending in the said Chak. ??????????? In District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) certain State land had been sold to evacuees prior to Independence. It was not given effect to in the Revenue Record, as a result of which the land continued to be shown as State land. By a policy decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide memo. No.2198‑63/2597/RL, dated 15‑5‑1963 the lands were declared to be evacuee property since 1‑3‑1947 as the sale of the said land in favour of the evacuee had been completed on payment of full price. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Faisalabad, was, therefore, directed to utilize the said land for allotment to displaced persons under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The appellants whose claim had been transferred to Chak No.151/G.B. and who were sitting allottees in the said Chak became entitled to the transfer of the said land. However, the respondents made applications about the land in dispute and claiming status of informers asked for the transfer of the lands available in the above Chak. This was accordingly done and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Faisalabad, passed orders in favour of the respondents to the effect that the land comprised in Square No.1, Killa Nos. 11, 12, 19, 20, 22 and 23 in Chak No.151/G.B., being evacuee property should be taken away from tile previous allottees and transferred to the respondents and a robkar was accordingly sent to the Chairman, Allotment Committee, for the purpose of implementation of the orders. The appellants' appeal before tile Additional Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, and their revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, were dismissed on 17‑6‑1964 and 19‑1‑1967. Their writ petitions too met the same fate on 13‑5‑1985. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the orders of the relevant authorities. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the status of the disputed land was determined through a policy decision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 15‑5‑1963, therefore, the respondents could not be termed as informers and claim any superior right on that score for the reason that it was not on tile basis of their applications or complaints that any alleged evacuee land was unearthed. Further, that no fraudulent allotment was brought to the notice of the Department. The appellants are claimants and are sitting allottees over the land. Their claim for allotment could not, therefore, be legally ignored. The main point argued by the learned counsel is that in the facts and circumstances of this case the appellants having made application for allotment of the land in question which had already been discovered as evacuee property, the respondents' side could not have been allowed the benefit of being Mukhbars. According to him the property was not dug out as a result of any Mukhbari report or application. On the other hand it appears that while the appellants' side having got adjusted about 3/4th of their P.I. Units wanted only remaining 1/4th to be adjusted. There is nothing on record to show that the major part of the respondents' units had similarly been adjusted and the land in dispute has been given to them for satisfying their remaining insignificant or proportionately lesser number of P.I. Units. Sufficient material has not been brought on record to show as to how the respondents' units came to be satisfied in the estate in question. The plea of the appellants that they were prior sitting allottees in the Chak (as distinguished from allottees of the land in dispute) cannot adequately be adjudicated upon in absence of the circumstances in which the respondents' units were brought to this estate. Regarding the question of the respondents being Mukhbars their learned counsel also took up an alternative plea that in case it becomes necessary, they could have also been treated as ordinary applicants for allotment of available land in the estate in question. After hearing both sides at length and keeping in view the paucity of material placed on record by the appellants we consider it fit to offer to the respondents as well as the appellants' side to distribute the land in question in equal shares; this being a better course, at this late stage of land settlement; instead of imposing a decision on one or the other party who all admittedly are claimants. Learned counsel for the respondents accepted the proposal but the learned counsel for the appellants remained hesitant. In our view, the interest of justice would be satisfied if (instead of remanding the case for the sake of the appellants in the above‑noted circumstances, when they have themselves failed to place on record the necessary material) we finally decide the matter by equal distribution of the land amongst the concerned parties in this case. Both the learned counsel agreed that there are three on the respondents' side and one on the appellants' side. We, accordingly while modifying the impugned judgment and all orders of the authorities concerned in this behalf direct that 1/4th of the land would go to the appellants and the remaining 3/4th would be distributed 1/4th each amongst the parties on the respondents' side. Thus the appeals are partly allowed., There shall be no order as to costs. M.BA./A‑849/S? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? order accordingly.