1968 PLP 150 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to Property No. P-216/B, Kamalia, Tehsil Toba Teh Singh, District Lyallpur. It was transferred to the petitioners on the 4th of February 1960. A P. T. D. was also thereafter issued to them, but on the 20th of July 1963, the respondents herein filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, on the ground that the said property had been acquired by them in exchange with their properties in India with the approval of the Cousto2ian and hence it was not liable to he transferred as an evacuee property. In support of their claim they also filed an exchange deed. Accepting this document the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that the Custodian had confirmed the exchange of all the properties mentioned in the deed. The petitioners then having failed before the higher Settlement Authorities moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Even this failed. Hce they now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. It is first contended on their behalf that the Custodian had only confirmed the exchange of agricultural properties and not of town properties. This was evidently under the impression that only agricultural properties were mentioned in the deed of exchange but on a reference to the deed of exchange it appears that it deals with agricultural lands, three houses, a shop and certain quarters. The point raised is, therefore, misconceived as the exchange did not relate to only agricultural lands. The next ground urged is that Khasra No. 1127, WhitIb is 40v, the bone 9f contention between the parties, was not included in the exchange deed, as it was not the property of Hukum Chand or his father Rai Sahib Bahadur Chand. I he Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 (Annexure 'L') is relied upon to show that two other persons, namely, Mohan Lal and Raj Kishore, were also co-sharers in this Khasra. Furthermore, it appears from the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed on the 24th of February 1953, that before him an order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), dated the 2nd May 1961, was also placed to show that there had been some kind of a partition of the property. It may be that the co-sharers of this Khasra had partitioned the property amongst themselves after Hukum Chand exchanged his share with the respondents, and in this partition the house in dispute fell to the share of the respondents. Learned counsel has, of course, contended that the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to act in respect of urban property, but since it is not clear as to whether the house in dispute was really an urban property and whether it had upon partition been given to the respondents the learned counsel prays for time to file the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and other relevant documents. The adjournment prayed for is granted to enable the petitioners to put in the above documents. A fresh date will, after the documents have been filed, be fixed by the office.