1994 PLP 1041 (CLC)

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that out of Khasra No.9310/9188/1624 land measuring 13 Kanals 14 Marlas situate in Village Khokhar was evacuee property and the same was allotted to one Malik Muhammad son of Kalu in 1959 as against his claim and the disputed property measuring 1 Kanal is part of the aforementioned allotment, the allottee sold the disputed land to different persons and finally to Mst. Shabbir Akhtar from whom the respondents drive title by registered sale‑deed dated 13‑3‑1979 for a consideration of Rs. 40,

000. It is urged that in view of above the plot in question could not have been transferred in favour of the petitioner by order dated 18‑3‑1982 of the Deputy Administrator and the same has rightly been set aside by the impugned order dated 9th October, 1982.

4. Reliance is' placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on (1) Register Haqdaran 1945‑46, showing the total area of Khasra number as 269 Kanals 6 Marlas, (2) order dated 2‑10‑1968 of Civil Judge, Daska passed in civil suit filed by one Muhammad Hussain against the allottee Malik Muhammad and (3) demarcation proceedings dated 10‑12‑1974 concerning 13 Kanals 14 Marlas in favour of allottee, to show that the disputed plot measuring one Kanal is not in the allotment of the original allottee Malik Muhammad and therefore, the respondents cannot claim any right of this property.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the sale‑deed of the disputed plot by Mst. Shabbir Akhtar in favour of the respondents, does not show the correct demarcation as to the sale of the plot‑ in question. Lastly, he contends that the original allottee Malik Muhammad could not have been allotted the disputed plot as against his rural ‑units, the disputed land being an urban area.

6. There is no force .in any one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel as it is not shown in any one of the documents, relied upon, that the disputed plot is not the property of the original allottee. The learned Administrator in para. 5 of his order has held that "it is established from the different documents filed by the parties in different Courts as well as from the boundaries of the suit plot shown in registered sale‑deed executed by the respondents at the time of obtaining the transfer of the plot in their favour that it is one and the same plot. The suit plot having been already allotted against RL‑11 was, therefore, not available for disposal by the Settlement Department under the R.P. Scheme."

7. From the above it appears that the learned Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order after having fully applied his mind and considered all the documentary evidence as is now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is conceded that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell regarding the disputed plot with Mst. Shabbir Akhtar and a suit for specific performance was also filed by the petitioners in the Civil Court but later on withdrawn. This clinches the whole issue. If the petitioners were entitled for the transfer of the plot in question under the R.P. Scheme they could not have entered into any agreement with Mst. Shabbir Akhtar from whom the respondents have purchased the disputed plots.

8. The contention of the. learned counsel that the plot in dispute being situate in Urban Area and could not be allotted to the allottee as against his rural units also goes against him very strongly. This fully demonstrates that the allotment was in fact made to the allottee Malik Muhammad who sold the same to various persons and finally in favour of Mst. Shabbir Akhtar who in turn sold the same to the respondents.

9. Undeniably the plot in dispute was transferred to the respondents in the year 1982 as a residential property and there is no evidence on the record that the same was available for transfer. The Deputy Administrator while transferring the property by his order dated 18‑3‑1982 did not give any notice to the original allottee or his successors particularly the present respondents. In case the property was available it would have been applied for and transferred long before 1982 and therefore, the finding of the learned Settlement Commissioner that it could not be retransferred is unexceptionable.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents states at the Bar that the disputed plot being adjacent to the factory of the petitioners, the latter has forcibly trespassed into the same and ejectment proceedings have already been initiated against them by the respondents.

11. Look from any angle the Deputy Administrator had no jurisdiction whatsoever to retransfer the property in question by his order dated 18‑3‑1982 in favour of the petitioners and this order was rightly set aside by the impugned order dated 9‑10‑1982. The learned Administrator has considered all aspects of the case and then passed the order which is strictly in accordance with law and (here is no manifest illegality which warrants interference by this Court. For reasons stated above there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. H.B.T/N‑200/L Petition dismissed,