1983 PLP 1050 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑This order will dispose of two petitions, that is, Nos. 836 and 837 of 1976, which have been filed by the same petitioners for seeking leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑6‑1976 accepting Writ Petitions Nos. 405/11 and 406/11 of 1976 of Syed Afzal Hussain and Ibrahim and others, respondents; respectively.

2. The dispute relates to the lands allotted to the said respondents on 6‑7‑1954 Syed Afzal Hussain, respondent in Civil Petition No. 836 of 1976, had been allotted land equivalent to 412 P. I. Units in Village Chaddar, Tehsil and District Multan, as below: "45 Kanals 8 Marlas Nehri 167 Kanals 7 Marlas Banjar Qadeem 16 Kanals 0 Marla Ghair Mumkin." Ibrahim and others, respondents in the other petition, had also been allotted land in the same village equivalent to 68 P. I. Units. On 16‑10‑1968, the petitioners moved an‑ application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, alleging that the allottees had secured allotment of land in excess of their entitlement inasmuch as the land . shown as Bangar Qadeem/Ghair Mumkin in their allotment was in fact "Nehri". The Additional Settlement Commissioner by relying on the Khasra Girdawaris for 1947, in the absence of the relevant Special Jamabandi which was not made available to him, ordered cancellation of the excess land. The respondents agitated the matter, first before the Department and failing there, before the High Court, in the result of which it was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner. But the learned officer rejected their revision petitions on 4‑3‑1976 for the reason that in the absence of the Special Jamabandi, resort to the relevant Khasra Girdawaris was "only natural". In the writ petitions that the respondents subsequently filed, the High Court, however, noted that the endorsement made on the application of the allottees showed that the Special Jamabandi had been available in the year 1967 and from this deduced that the allotment as originally made must have conformed to the entries in the Special Jamabandi. The High Court further held that in view of para. 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part II, as interpreted in Umar Draz Ali v. Manzoor Ahmad (1969 S C M R 327), the Khasra Girdawari could not have been relied upon unless the entries in the Special Jamabandi had been found to 6e spurious, that the allotments made should not have been interfered with after 16 years merely on the basis of the Khasr Girdawaris and that the Settlement authorities ought to have made efforts to find out the classification of the land on the basis of the Special Jamabandi.

3. The argument before us is that in the absence of the Special Jamabandi, reliance had rightly been placed on the Khasra Girdawaris. It, however, appears that no proper effort had been made to secure the relevant Special Jamabandi and the basis of holding that the said Jamabandi was not available was only the report of the Patwari, at pages 28 and 29 of the present paper‑book, to the effect that he had not received, when taking charge, the Special Jamabandi and the Jamabandis for the period 1940 to 1947. There is nothing to show that a request had been made to the Record Room, the District Headquarters or the Canal Department for the purpose. That being so, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order to the High Court: The petitions are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M. Z. M. Leave refused.