1994 PLP 1206 (MLD)

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-5-1993 of the A.C./Collector Sub-Division, Depalpur where the application of the petitioners/informers for the allotment of the disputed land has been rejected and the petitioners are allowed to file separate application for the adjustment of their claim for any other available land. It is stated that this writ petition can be concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12-3-1974 in C.P.S.L.A. No.345 of 1973.

2. Briefly stated, one Muhammad Din son of Afzaish Khan was allotted land as against Claim No.293 in Mauza Bahawal Das, Tehsil Depalpur which after the death of the claimant was alienated in favour of Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali as his sole heirs and Mutation No.14 was sanctioned on 14-12-1954. Thereafter one Ali Muhammad acting as informer filed an application that the land was obtained by fraud by the claimant and, therefore, the same be cancelled. The learned D.R.C. (L) held enquiry vide order dated 30-8-1958 and by reviewing previous Mutations Nos.13 and 14 cancelled the same vide his order, dated 26-9-1958. This order was passed in absence of Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali.

3. Against the order, dated 30-8-1958 revision petition was filed before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Division where Ali Muhammad informer and Qutab-ud-Din etc. entered into a compromise where the latter surrendered 93 Kanals 10 Marlas of land in favour of Ali Muhammad informer and the same was given to him as against his claim. The learned Rehabilitation Commissioner accepted the revision petition in terms of the compromise.

4. After some time Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali were tried by the Military Court for filing bogus claim and were convicted but later on acquitted by the Military Court on 30-6-1961. However, there was a direction by the Military authorities that Qutab-ud-Din etc. be restored the land which was cancelled from their name. But the Chairman, Allotment Committee on 29-9-1963 refused to do so on the ground that Qutab-ud-Din etc. had already entered into a compromise which was approved by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 18-2-1960 and this order having not been challenged the same attained finality. Qutab-ud-Din etc. challenged the order of the Chairman, Allotment Committee dated 29-9-1963 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 10-10-1964 accepted the same whereupon Ali Muhammad filed revision petition which was rejected on 6-5-1965. Feeling aggrieved he filed a writ petition before this Court which was accepted on 2-2-1973 on the ground that Qutab-ud-Din had himself entered into a compromise surrendering 93 Kana(s 10 Marlas of land in favour of Ali Muhammad and they were estopped to claim the return of the suit land subsequently. This order, dated 2-2-1973 was challenged by Qasim Ali and Qutab-ud-Din before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.S.L.A. No.345 of 1973 and the same was dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioners in the civil petition were bound by the compromise whereby the land was surrendered in favour of Ali Muhammad.

5. In spite of the aforementioned orders dated 2-2-1973 of this Court and order, dated 12-3-1974 of the Supreme Court, the A.C./A.S.C. Depalpur, vide his order dated 26-1-1976 cancelled the entire land measuring 379 Kanals 19 Marlas from the name of Qasim Ali and Qutab-ud-Din on the application of the respondents/informers under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act. It appears that these informers moved the Settlement Authorities when the case regarding the disputed land was already pending before the High Court and finally the writ petition disposed of on 2-2-1973.

6. Qutab-ud-Din etc. assailed the order dated 26-1-1976 by which the land was cancelled and the writ petition was accepted on 17-12-1992 by this Court and the case was remanded to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. It was also directed that the parties who will lose the land in question shall also be accommodated by the A.C./notified officer by giving him some other land as against his claim. In pursuance of the aforementioned order the case was taken up and by order, dated 3-5-1993 the A.C./Collector has refused to cancel any land from the name of Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali which order is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioner/informer.

7. From the resume of the facts it is manifestly clear that the original claimant was one Mu4ammad Din and after his death Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali were declared as sole heirs and Mutation No.14 was sanctioned in their name on 14-12-1954 and they became the transferees of the disputed land. Thereafter there was some litigation between these persons and Ali Muhammad informer which was settled by way of compromise which was finally maintained by this Court vide order, dated 2-2-1973 which order was further upheld by the Supreme Court on 12-3-1974. The effect of the compromise was that out of the land given to Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali as heirs of Muhammad Din only 93 Kanals 10 Marlas of land was surrendered in favour of Ali Muhammad. The allegations of the respondents that Muhammad Din through whom Qutab-ud-Din and Qasim Ali inherited was alive and therefore, the land was obtained fraudulently was also the subject-matter of the previous litigation and this has been taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the narration of facts which are as hereunder:

"The information was later on laid by Ali Muhammad respondent No.1 that both Muhammad Din and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were alive and that the petitioners had obtained the allotment fraudulently. An inquiry was held by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner who found that Muhammad Din and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were alive and the allotment of land obtained by the petitioners as well as the mutations of inheritance sanctioned at their instance were liable to be set aside."

8. Despite above allegations the Settlement Commissioner did not want to reopen the case and accepted the compromise between Ali Muhammad on one hand and Qasim Ali and Ghulam Fatima on the other hand where the latter had surrendered the land measuring 93 Kanals 10 Marlas in favour of the' informer and rest of the land was allowed to be retained. In view of the aforementioned facts the respondents could not act as second informer on the same facts which were subject-matter of the lengthy litigation and finally the compromise was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner on 18-2-1960 and was also maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents have been permanently settled on the land in dispute and the matter having already been decided one way or the other the cancellation of the land by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 26-1-1976 was set aside by order; dated 17-12-1992 of this Court in pursuance of which the impugned order has been passed in favour of the respondents.

9. When confronted the learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to satisfy me as to how the Settlement Authorities could reopen the case in view of the previous litigation which was concluded by order dated 12-3-1974 of the Supreme Court. For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./F-127/L Petition dismissed