1969 PLP 16 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to 7 acres 3 kanals and 18 marlas of land situated in Square No. 17 of Chak No. 69/5‑L in Tehsil Montgomery (Sahiwal). This land was originally allotted to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and was actually confirmed in their favour in 1952 but on the 24th September 1953, the Additional Naib‑Tehsildar, Montgomery, reported that a garden existed on this plot which belonged to the evacuee owners although in the revenue papers the land was classified as merely Nehri. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, acting on this report cancelled the allotment of the respondents and ultimately, after the order of cancellation had been upheld in review and revision by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the entire portion was allotted to the petitioner on the 16th February 1956, by the Garden Allotment Committee as against his garden claim. The respondents then challenged this allotment by a writ petition in the High Court. This was dismissed by a learned Single Judge but on a Letters Patent Appeal the decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner for fresh decision, after taking into consideration the evidence referred to by the learned Single Judge. After remand the Rehabilitation authori ties, right up to the revision stage, held that the disputed property was agricultural land and not garden and, therefore, should remain in the allotment of the respondents, The petitioner, accordingly, challenged this order by a writ petition but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the 10th January 1968. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the Rehabilitation authorities, in coming to the conclusion that the land was not a garden in 1946‑47 have omitted to notice impor tant pieces of evidence and grievously misread other pieces of evidence. The learned counsel has placed before us the relevant khasra girdawari, the spot report of the Naib‑Tehsildar and certain other documents which, according to him, were sufficient to establish that this was a garden land but it is significant that even in the khasra girdawari, while in column No. 4 the land has been described as Baghicha, in columns Nos. 5 and 6, which are the cultivation columns, it is shown that pulse, cotton and other kind of food grains were being and actually grown on this land. In the column of cultivation the word `garden' does not appear. It cannot, therefore, be said that the evidence has been misread. The authorities have taken into consideration the Khasra Girdawari anti have come to the conclusion that it might well be that the garden was planted subsequently by the petitioner. Learned counsel next contended that under para. 6 sub‑para. 4 of the Rehabilitation Scheme of 1957, it was incumbent upon the Rehabilitation authorities where no entry of a garden was to be found in the special Jamabandi, as in the present case, to make a spot inspection. This should have been done. But it has to "be pointed out that the spot inspection report of the Naib -Tehsildar was already on the record and no useful purpose would have been served by making another spot inspection. It could not have revealed .as to what was the actual condition in 1946‑

47. Papers showing that special quota of water had been granted to the owners of this land for irrigation of a garden are also not of much help, because, this does not conclusively establish that a garden was, in fact, laid out after obtaining such a special quota. In any event, it appears to us that the question as to whether there was a garden on this land or not in the year 1946‑47 was essentially a question of fact on which the parties were in serious dispute. It had been determined by the Rehabilitation authorities consistently in one way at the remand stage. There could be no scope, therefore, for the High Court to go behind that finding in its writ jurisdiction, unless it could be shown that the findings of the Rehabilitation authorities were based on no evidence. This is not the case, here, for, the evidence to which the learned counsel has drawn our attention shows that there was evidence in the case upon which the finding of the authorities could well have been based. In the circumstances we see no ground for interference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.