1985 PLP 635 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.‑‑ The dispute in this case concerns an area of evacuee agricultural land situate in village Lorriki, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. It was originally confirmed in the name of one Noor Din on the 30th of October, 1966. The petitioners are vendees from the original allottees. One Ali Bakhsh laid information against Noor Din, and the land was cancelled from the latter's name by the Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, by his order dated the 11th of August, 1969. The petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.106‑R of 1970 on the ground that as vendees they had not been heard. This petition was accepted on the 13th of March, 1972, and the case was remanded. On remand the learned Settlement Commissioner maintained his earlier order, and again resumed the land by his order, dated the 11th of December, 1973. This order was also challenged under the writ jurisdiction, but it was maintainer in Writ Petition No.1129‑R of 1973 by the order of the High Court dated the 26th of September,1975. On its cancellation and resumption from Noor Din and the present petitioners, the land was allotted to one Jeemun. The petitioners laic information against Jeemun, who had in the meantime sold the land to some of the respondents. This Mukhbari application was accepted b3 the Settlement Commissioner on 1‑11‑1975 by an ex parte order, to the ex parte order was later set aside on the application of the vendees, When the matter came up again for hearing before the Settlement Commissioner, an objection was taken that the question of the inheritance of Makhu, whose heir Jeemun was claiming to be, could not be gone into in view of a judgment given by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 702‑R of 1970. This objection was upheld by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated the 17th of October, 1977, observing that the question of inheritance of Makhu could not be re‑opened by him; however, on other issues /allegations regarding the allotment, a: raised in the Mukhbari application, the proceedings will continue. This order of the learned Settlement Commissioner was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1448 of 1977 by the present petitioners, but this petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on 6‑12‑1977, with the result that the question as to the inheritance of Makhu stood foreclosed. Thereafter the learned Settlement Commissioner took up the matter for the final disposal of the Mukhbari application, and by his order, dated the 13th of April, 1978, he dismissed the same, holding that no excess land had been obtained by the original allottee. The petitioners challenged this final order by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but their petition has beers dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court by his order, dated the 13th of January, 1980. They seek leave to appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Settlement Commissioner was in error in thinking that he could not examine the question of the inheritance of Makhu, as this question could always be re‑considered if fresh material was available, and in this case there was evidence, in the shape of the statement of one Yaqub, who had been a Patwari in India in the village concerned, to the effect that Makhu had died issueless in 1913 and his estate had escheated to the Government, and, therefore, nothing was left for being claimed in Pakistan. He contended that, in any case, this was not a matter, which had been decided by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order; dated the 17th of October, 1977, and upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1448/11 of 1977. He next contended that Jeemun had not submitted his claim in village Lorriki, and for this reason as well he could not obtain this allotment. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the land was in excess of the true entitlement of the allottee, and, should, therefore, have been resumed, in which case the petitioners as bona fide purchasers from Noor Din etc. could have been allowed to keep the land. We regret we do not see any merit in these submissions. According' to the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme the entitlement of displaced persons for obtaining evacuee land in Pakistan is examined and determined with reference, to the entries appearing in the special Jamabandi prepared with regard to the estate concerned in India in 1947. According to the statement of the Patwari, who had dealt with this case, the special Jamabandi contained entries regarding the ownership of Makhu, and, therefore, the oral statement made by one Yaqub that Makhu having died issueless his property had been escheated to the State, could not override the entries appearing in the official documents exchanged between India and Pakistan. The question of the inheritance of Makhu having already been finally decided in proceedings before the High Court, which decision was not challenged by the petitioners in this Court, the learned Settlement Commissioner was right in holding that the land had not been obtained fraudulently by Jeemun etc. The other points have already been found against the petitioners on findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner. In this state of the record, no justification had been made out in the High Court for accepting the writ petition filed by the petitioners. For the same reasons, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.