1994 PLP 2193 (MLD)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN; J.

This L.PA. was direct against the order, dated 3-3-1970 whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed Constitution petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant-petitioner had challenged in the Constitution petition the order, dated 6th December, 1969 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot, with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby he not only dismissed the appeal pending before him but also cancelled the allotment of land in favour of Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begum, respondents in Kot Daska, District Sialkot. The land which was got allotted in the name of Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begun respondents, was statedly purchased by the appellant and sale mutation was also got sanctioned. On 30th June, 1969, the Assistant Collector, Daska cancelled the above-noted mutation and aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. At the time of hearing, it appears that one Nabi Bukhsh who was interested in obtaining the land allotted to Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begun produced a copy of RL-II register of Village Pakki Thatti, District Lahore showing that Faiz Muhammad Shah had been allotted land in that village and none of his units were left unsatisfied. Similarly, Sardar Begum also obtained allotment in Village Nawan Kot, District Lahore and as such none of her units too remained unsatisfied. The Deputy Commissioner noting these facts, not only dismissed the petition but also passed an order cancelling the allotment obtained in the names of Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begum. Thus the allotment of land at Khata Nos.72 and 1731 at Kot Daska in favour of Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begum stood cancelled as also for the reason that attorneys of the said allottees had disowned these allotments. The order cancelling the allotment was not interfered with in Constitution petition though it was represented that allotments obtained by Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begum, respondents at Lahore had later been also cancelled prior to the purchase of land at Kot Daska from them by Sh. Muhammad Usman, appellant.. It was also represented before the learned Judge in Chamber that the attorneys of respondents had made false statements that Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begum had no allotments in Kot Daska. The observation recorded in this respect was that the contention raised is a question of fact which needs investigation and recording of evidence and as such the same is not a fit subject for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution. It was also observed by the learned Judge that the copies of RL-II registers which allegedly show that allotment in favour of respondents at Lahore had, been cancelled, were not produced before the Additroflf Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner at the time hearing and therefore the finding that land had been allotted to them at village Pakki Thatti and Nawan Kot, Lahore cannot be challenged as arbitrary. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any justification to intervene in Letters Patent Appeal as the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the question of fact raised during the arguments could not be gone into without holding a factual inquiry. Moreover, nothing is 00 record as to circumstances under which allotment in favour of Fair Miummad Shah and Sardar Begum, respondents at Lahore had been cancelled. It is also not known as to what happened ultimately to the said allotments at Lahore. If the appellant is a genuine purchaser his remedy was to proceed against Faiz Muhammad Shah and Sardar Begun, respondents in accordance with law. The appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed. As none has entered appearance to oppose the appeal, the parties bear their own costs. H.B.T./M-1740/L Appeal dismissed.