1989 PLP 3751 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Allotment of land is something substantive and is never relatable to pen and paper as law does not prescribe paper allotment‑‑Fundamental principle of settlement is settlement of displaced persons and other proposals and orders of confirmations are to be accompanied by factum of delivery of possession under Settlement Schemes‑‑Settlement Authorities while cancelling allotment, held, had no right to play displaced person like a chattel, but they had to issue notice and to undertake inquiry and after inquiry they could pass cancellation order. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent. Date of hearing, 13th December, 1988. The validity of the note dated 8‑12‑1971 in RL II No.56 as well as the purported order dated 6‑12‑1971 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in exercise of the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is questioned in this constitutional petition.

2. The dispute arises out of a note of the Additional Chief Settlement Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, dated 6‑12‑1971 by which the Additional Settlement Commissioner is alleged to have cancelled the confirmation of land in dispute measuring 74 kanals 1 marla in Mauza Ghazi Muniara Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. Briefly, it may be stated over here that the petitioner was proposed and confirmed 146 kanals 11 marlas vide RL II No.56 by order dated 25‑10‑1971, the confirmation to the extent of 74 kanals 1 marla was retained by the appellate authority by order dated 11‑8‑1972 while the rest was cancelled. This order was passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner.

3. In the year 1976, according to the petitioner it came to his knowledge that his confirmation had been cancelled by the aforesaid order on the premises that the same land was proposed and confirmed to one Athar Ali Khan (respondent No.2) vide RL II No.33. The proposal was made on 24‑8‑71 and the confirmation appears to have been done on 2‑6‑

71. It is very interesting that the Settlement Department submitted a written statement in which they impliedly gave out that these were forged orders and did not exist on their file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his petition, contended that the orders dated 6-12‑1971 and 8‑12‑1971 were practically forged orders. His confirmation remained intact upto the date of filing the petition and therefore, this was a just work of forgers. Learned counsel for the respondent also inter alia replied that the order was not a forged one. Actually Nawab Ibrahim Ali Khan had died in 1959. His claim was by means of an inheritance split up and ‑the claims were separately certified by the Central Record Room in favour of his sons. It was also contended by the learned counsel that there are three other orders which purportedly show the cancellation in favour of the petitioner but even they do not indicate any existence on the RL 11 which was submitted by the petitioner alongwith the petition (Annexure A). Annexure A contained only half truths and concealed so many orders which were detrimental to the petitioner. I am afraid I am not able to undertake this inquiry in the constitutional jurisdiction. A very fundamental principle of Settlement is settlement of the displaced persons and the other proposals and orders of confirmations are to be accompanied by the factum of delivery of possession under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Schemes. The law does not prescribe paper allotments. Allotment is, never relatable to pen and paper it is something substantive. It is without any dispute that the order dated 6‑12‑1971 is not on the record of the petition nor the order dated 8‑12‑1971 shows that the order was passed in stricto senso within the framework of Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The Settlement Authorities have no right to play with the displaced persons like a chattel. They had to issue notice and to undertake the inquiry and after inquiry they have to pass orders. No such thing appears in these orders at all. Because of this obvious omission this Court is not able to arrive at the right conclusion in the interest of justice. I have no option but to accept the petition. The case is remanded to the ADC(G)Revenue/Notified Officer. It is given out by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the powers have been withdrawn from the ADC(G). If it is so, then this case will go to the Notified Officer, Sheikhupura who will decide the case after giving the both parties an opportunity to prove their case. The parties will be at liberty to raise all their submissions irrespective of any observation made in this order. The Notified Officer is also directed to decide the case within six months positively with an intimation to this Court as the parties have been in this litigation for a long time. There shall be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./F‑147/L Order accordingly.