1994 PLP 109 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1993. JUDGMENT . Facts may be briefly narrated; some evacuee agricultural land was allotted in favour of Muhammad Musa, respondent No.3 in different Districts of Punjab inclusive of District Dera Ghazi Khan. The allotment of District D.G. Khan was spread over in seven villages. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 purchased land measuring 151 Kanals in Mauza Rindwala from the aforesaid allottee. The remaining petitioners have purchased various parcels of land in other villages in District Dera Ghazi Khan. On a Mukhbari application filed by Khushi Muhammad, etc. Additional Commissioner (Consolidation)/ Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan Division, passed an order on 20‑9‑1977 canceling the allotment of the lands purchased by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition.

2. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 20‑9‑1977 is not sustainable in law for variety of reasons; (i) no enquiry as visualized by law was held by the respondent No.l before proceeding to hold that the allotments in the name of Musa, respondent No.3 in District D.G. Khan were liable to be cancelled being in excess of his entitlement; and (ii) the petitioners were not heard. Though, being bona fide purchasers for value, they had a vested right of showing cause against the proposed action. In furtherance of his above submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through impugned order dated 20‑9‑1977 and contended that without seeking verification of the entitlement of Musa from the Central Record Room learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has directed the cancellation of allotments from his name in different districts. It is true that Musa was summoned and his statement was recorded wherein he disowned the allotments in question claiming that it is only in Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar that he had validly secured some allotments. According to the learned counsel the abovesaid statement of Musa was motivated, he having sold the remaining lands, was making a desperate attempt to retain the allotment in Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar and the said statement could not be accepted as gospel truth. It is also submitted that the petitioners being vendees in possession should have been summoned and in case such a course had been adopted they would have been able to establish that the lands allotted in the name of Musa particularly those sold to the petitioners were not liable to cancellation.

3. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel that no enquiry as visualized by law was held by respondent No.l before passing the impugned order. Musa having disposed of the lands in District D.G. Khan was least interested to save the same from cancellation. In the circumstances, it was highly unsafe to act on his ipse dixit. It was only fair that a reference was made to Central Record Room by learned respondent No.l for obtaining necessary data with regard to the real entitlement of Musa before any order adversely affecting the ' allotments in question was passed. In failing to secure necessary information, with reference to the record maintained by Central Record Room about the extent of entitlement of Musa, learned respondent No.l has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under the law rendering the impugned order to be declared to be without lawful authority. It is so declared.

4. The result is that the matter shall be deemed to be pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner/M.B.R., who shall entrust the same to a competent Notified Officer for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioners shall appear before the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner on 20 5‑1993, who shall entrust the matter to competent Notified Officer (disputed land being situated in more than one district) for fresh decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the above observations. No costs. H.&T. /M ‑1198/L Order accordingly,