1969 PLP 943 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to 11 kanals and 10 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Bahawalnagar which was originally confirmed on the 16th April, 1960, in the name of one Khair Din. He was a son of Ilahi Bakhsh, a resident of India before Partition. But it appears that Khair Din came over to Bahawalpur in the year 1905, became a Patwari and acquired lands in village Rojhianwali which is adjacent to Bahawalnagar. He retired as a Girdawar on the 15th September 1947, after Partition. Ilahi, Bakhsh migrated to Pakistan after Partition and settled in Chak No. 6/G. B., Sheikhupura, and died in 1948 leaving behind 5 sons and a daughter, including the said Khair Din. The claim of the heirs of Ilahi Bakhsh was verified in Pakistan and mutation was entered on the 20th of July 1954. Subsequently Khair Din claimed allotment of land in Bahawalnagar both on the basis of inheritance from his father and on the basis of the lands which he himself claimed to have left in India. He and one Jalal Din were jointly given 320 units, on the basis of inheritance from Ilahi Bakhsh, in Bahawalnagar. At the time that these lands were confirmed in the names of Khair Din and Jalal Din, the first two respondents herein were not parties to those proceedings. But subsequently in August, 1961, the first respondent and the father of the second respondent filed an appeal against the confirmation order. This appeal was dismissed on the 29th of March 1963, on the grounds; (1) that it was barred by time by some 16 months, (2) that the entire claim of Qamar 131w had been satisfied from other lands before the land in dispute had been confirmed in favour of Khair Din and (3)‑ that the appeal was incompetent since it had been preferred against Ilahi Bakhsh who was a dead person. It appears, however, that subsequently as some documents had been lost a re‑confirmation proceeding was started and the lands were re‑confirmed in the name of Khair Din on the 9th of May 1962. This time the respondent' Nizam Din took objection to it and preferred an appeal. This was accepted on the 29th of March 1963; and Nizam Din was given 41 kanals of land. Against these orders Qamar Din filed two revision petitions and Khair Din filed one revision petition. All these revision petitions were heard together and were allowed. Qamar Din was given 7.; kanals of the disputed land and Nizam Din was given 4 kanals but Khair Din's claim was rejected. Khair Din moved the High Court, under Article 98 of tile Constitution against this order impleading Nizam Din and Qamar Din as respondents. Qamar Din died during the pendency of those proceedings and his legal representative respondent No. (2) was brought on the record. This constitutional petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 22nd of April 1966, and this order was upheld by a Division Bench on a Letters Patent Appeal. The heirs of Khair Din, who has since died, now seek special leave to appeal. It is contended on their behalf that the Additional Commissioner exercising the powers of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal by Qamar Din which had been dismissed as time‑barred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 29th March 1963, because, section 5 of the Limitation Act was not made applicable to proceedings under the Land Settlement Act. The period of limitation fixed by the land Settlement Act itself could not, therefore, have been condoned (vide sections 18 and 19). Even if this be so, we are of the opinion that this is not a; fit case in which leave to appeal should be granted, for, in effect substantial justice has been done. This was not, as the High Court has held, merely a case of an appeal or revision under the Land Settlement Act but also a case of the authorities exercising their wide powers under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act; 1956, which does not specify any time limit for suo motu summoning the records of any case and correcting errors (vide section 11). Qamar Din was a temporary allottee in this village and he was actually dispossessed in Khurif 1961 to accommodate Khair Din from his lands, on the ground that his entitlement have already been fully satisfied. Qamar Din's entitlement, however, subsequently increased as a result of inheritance from his brother. It was only right, therefore, that his additional entitlement should have been met from the lands which were in his temporary allotment. We are also not impressed by the argument that Qamar Din's claim was forged, for, this was a question which should have been raised before the Settlement Authorities. Learned counsel has not been able to assail the entitlement of either Qamar Din or Nizam Din. In the circumstances, there is nothing before us to show that Khair Din had' any superior right. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused: