1988 PLP 1276 (CLC)

Writ Petition No. 117‑R of 1983, heard on 2nd February, 1988 ‑‑‑Ss. 10, 11 & 14(1‑A)‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance (XIV of 1975), S.3(1)(b)‑‑Cancellation of allotment of land‑‑Prior right of informant to purchase‑‑Informant having been given a legal right to allotment of land unearthed as a result of his information, right of purchase conferred on occupants of such land under S.3(1)(b) of Act XIV of 1975, held, must be read subject to result of informant's claim to its allotment as informant has been given priority over right of purchase conferred on occupants. Barkat Ali v. Syed Shazad Nazir and others 1981 S C M R 693 and Shujaat Ali'v. Muhammad Asghar P L D 1982 Lah. 106ref. Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioners. Kh. Shaukat Ali for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1988. Land in dispute was allotted /confirmed in the name of Muhammad Shafi son of Zain‑ul‑Abidin at Khata No.102 of Register RL‑II of village Dharam Singh, Tehsil Nankana District Sheikhupura. Petitioners purchased it from the allottee. Shah Din respondent No.3 and Muhammad Bashir (not a party in the present proceedings) through their special attorney filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement) Act, 1958 seeking the cancellation of the Khata in dispute on the ground that Muhammad Shaft had secured the allotment through fraud. Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Sheikhupura with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner after hearing the parties and after recording the necessary evidence found that the land in dispute was allotted to Muhammad Shafi on a forged and bogus claim. Additional Settlement Commissioner also observed that since the present petitioners had purchased the land in dispute soon after its allotment in the name of Muhammad Shafi, they were also privy to the fraud and, therefore, they were not entitled even to purchase it from the Government. With these findings, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 4‑11‑1976 cancelled the allotment of the land in dispute from the name of Muhammad Shafi and ordered its resumption with the further direction that since the area in dispute was cancelled on the 'Mukhbari' of the respondents, the same may be allotted to them in accordance with their entitlement. This order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner has been brought under challenge in the present Constitutional petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the cancellation of the Khata in dispute on merits but he has submitted that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers for consideration and in possession of the land in dispute have a prior right to purchase it by virtue of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, XIV of 1975. I am afraid, the provision relied upon by the learned counsel is of no help to the petitioners. Under subsection (1‑A) of section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, informants have been given a legal right to the allotment of land unearthed as a result of information given by them and this right has been held to have priority over the right of purchase conferred by the proviso to section 3(1)(b) claimed by the petitioners. Refer Barkat Ali v. Syed Shazad Nazir and others 1981 S C M R

693. A Division Bench of this Court also held in Shujaat Ali v. Muhammad Asghar P L D 1982 Lah. 106 that under subsection (1‑A) of section 14 of Land Settlement Act, 1958, an informant has a vested right to secure the allotment of land in respect whereof he has laid the information and that 'the right of purchase conferred on an occupant under the first proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 must be read subject to the result of informants' claim to its allotment pending under the repealed law. If this is not to prevail, the informer will have no remedy and the right granted to him under section 14(1‑A) of Act XLVIII would be meaningless and his endless labour to assist Government to unearth property fraudulently acquired would be in vain".

3. In view of the legal position afore-referred, the sole contention raised by the learned counsel is devoid of any merit. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑198/L Petition dismissed.