P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

Scheme recognises principle of first come first served‑Temporary allottees have preference over non‑allottees‑Allotment of person other than temporary allotee‑

Could be challenged only by temporary allottee and not by a rank outsider. Ihsanul Haq for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 23rd February 1961. The petitioner prays that the order dated the 8th of Septem ber 1960, passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner Hyderabad and Khairpur Division in revision may be quashed. It would be useful to reproduce the order of the Rehabilitation Commis sioner dated the 8th of September 1960. The relevant portion of the order runs as under:‑ "The applicant confined his submission to S. Nos. 72, 73 and 74 of Deh 26 Dad measuring 20 acres which were comprised in the temporary allotment of his relatives. Hafiz Muhammad Daud to whom the above mentioned land has been allotted was not a temporary allottee of this Deh. Moreover, he already has 156 acres while the applicant is a petty claimant of about 20 acres. Accordingly, I allow, this Revision to the extent that I direct that S. Nos. 72, 73 and 74 of Deh 26 Dad shall be utilised to satisfy the applicant's claim." The order, it is urged, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as humani tarian ground is not one of the grounds on which the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner could disturb the order of the Deputy Commissioner and D. R. C., Nawabshah. The order as reproduced above appears to have been passed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 was a petty claimant. Admittedly, he was not a temporary allottee of the members (sic) in question and so was not the petitioner. The question however is can the allotment of the petitioner be disturbed on humanitarian grounds Under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme it would appear that temporary allottees have preference over non allottees. In the present case, the temporary allottees had no entitlement in their favour at the time when the land was allotted to the petitioner. The scheme recognises the principle of first come first served. The petitioner's claim was perfect in all respects at the time when the allotment was made in his favour. His allotment, if at all, could be challenged only by the temporary allottees and not by a rank outsider like the respon dent No. 2.

2. The additional Advocate‑General has stated on behalf of the Rehabilitation Commissioner that the Government does not want to contest the petition. The respondent No. 2 is absent. I would, for the reasons given, above, quash the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 8th of September 1960. K.B.A. Order quashed.