1984 PLP 481 (MLD)

ZAKIUDDIN PAL, J.--The petitioner is a displaced person and, after Partition, was allotted 30 Kanals of urban agricultural land in Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, in 1953, and 40 Kanals of urban agricultural land in Lahore in the same year. Both these temporary allotments were maintained in his favour under the temporary urban scheme promulgated in 1957. After the enforcement of Supplementary Scheme No. 2 for the purpose of settlement of claims under Schedule IV, his claim was verified to the extent of 708 produce index units. The Entitlement Certificate in form U.R.V. was issued in his favour accordingly.

2. Thereafter, the land allotted in his favour at Lahore was confirmed and adjusted in his name against 400 produce index units. On his application, the remaining 308 produce index units were transferred to Mandi Bahauddin for adjustment. Since he was in possession of urban land there, therefore, the same area was proposed to be confirmed and adjusted against his 308 units. However, later on, he learnt that the said proposal was dropped in view of the instructions as contained in Memo. No.1841-60-12141-R(P) dated 17-3-1960, Annexure 'A'. According to this Memo. the authorities concerned were directed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner not to allot agricultural urban land in more than one urban area, and if such allotments had been made, the same may be reviewed and cancelled.

3. The petitioner, after having learnt about the said restrictions, made an application under section 33 of the Supplementary Scheme No.2 read with section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1956 for the purpose of correct interpretation of the said Memo. and adjustment of his entitle ment against his allotment under the temporary urban scheme at Mandi Bahauddin. The Chief Settlement Commissioner while disposing of the application, however, observed that if allotments were held by a person in two urban areas before April, 1954, both may be protected, unless ordered otherwise, as in the Memo. dated 17-3-1960 which had been issued under Settlement Scheme No.2. A review application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner asserting that the allotment of land in his favour was made prior to 1954 and was also maintained under the temporary urban scheme. The review petition was rejected on 23-2-1963 by the Chief Settlement Commis sioner, vide Annexure 'F', who observed in the said order that the petitioner could retain one out of the two allotments made in his favour. He further held that according to the policy laid down in Memo. dated 17-3-1960, allotment of urban agricultural land under Supplementary Scheme No.2 should be permitted in one urban area only. The petitioner has now come up to the High Court and has filed the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the impugned order as passed by the respondent and the vires of the Memo. dated 17-3-1960.

4. It has been contended that under pars. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No.2, the land held by the claimants under temporary urban scheme has to be adjusted subject to their entitlement, and there is no restriction that such adjustments are to be made at one place only. Any instructions issued contrary to that will be ultra vires of the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is further contended that the Memo. in question does not cover the case of a person who is an allottee under the temporary urban scheme. It applies to those persons who are not allottees under the temporary urban scheme and are allottees of land at one place and are trying to secure new allotment at another place under the Supplementary Scheme No.2.

5. It has, however, been brought to our notice that the Chief Settlement Commissioner after having reviewed the progress reports furnished by various Settlement authorities with regard to the first round of allotment of agricultural urban land, has found that a large number of claimants under Schedule IV have been settled wholly or partly and some area is still available to start the second round of allotment and has, therefore, issued another Memo. on 30-10-1970 directing the Settlement Officers concerned to adopt the following procedure for the disposal of the outstanding urban claims:- (i) For the present, a maximum of three-fourths of the total entitle ment inclusive of the allotment of urban land already secured by a claimant of an urban claim, is to be satisfied, leaving unsatisfied a balance of one-fourth. Claimants with entitlements up to 200 P.I. units shall be exempt from this cut and their claims shall be satisfied in full, (ii) in the urban areas where the available urban land be less than what is actually needed, all the available urban land shall be allotted to the smaller claimants first subject to the ceiling fixed under (i) above. The claimants having wholly or partly unsatisfied claims to the prescribed limit shall get their claims transferred to any surplus district of their choice, (iii) those who have obtained allotments in the rationed area of Lahore and in the Malir area of Karachi, up to the ceiling fixed for these areas in the first round, small be entitled to further allotment subject to the maximum of three-fourth of their total entitlement. Shall claims should be settled first.

6. The position with regard to the restrictions on the allotment of urban land in one urban area only has since been changed with the issuance of the above-mentioned memorandum. We are, therefore, not inclined to decide the various points as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this moment as we are remanding the case to the respondent to be disposed of in accordance with the directions as contained in the Memo. dated 30-10-1970 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is admitted that possession of the land allotted to the petitioner at both the place still lies with him and the same has not been allotted to any other person on account of the order of this Court passed on 25-6-1963 maintaining status quo. The petitioner as such is entitled to the allotment of urban land against his verified claim at more than one place if his claim cannot be satisfied in one urban area.

7. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders as passed by the respondent on 7-9-1961 and 23-2-1963 are set aside having no legal effect and the case is remanded to the respondent for disposal in accordance with the directions as contained in the Memo. dated 30-10-1970 issued by him and in the light of the observations as made above. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M. A. K. Case remanded.