1986 PLP 2789 (CLC)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)--Demarcation after issuance of P.T.D.--Legality--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Demarcation order of Settlement Authority made in respect of property after issuance of P.T.D. to transferees being just and not suffering from jurisdictional defect, held, would not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Abdul Hamid v. Gulab Khan and 2 others 1981 S C M R 188; Syed Amjad Ali and others v. Mian Brothers & Co. and others 1984 SCMR 961 and Sher Muhammad v. District Judge and Settlement Commissioner and 3 others 1983 C L C 1609 ref. Sh. Anwarul Haq for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1985. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Plot No. 112 measuring 7 Marlas and 53 Sq. Ft. in possession of Shaukat Ali, the Plot No. 113 measuring 6 Marlas and 68 Sq. Ft. in possession of Abdul Rehmat and Plot No. 114 measuring 6 Marlas and 68 Sq.Ft. in possession of Rana Jaffar Ali were included in the auction list at serial Nos. 30,31 and 33 respectively. Plot No. 112 was purchased in auction by Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Umar. Their bid was confirmed on 15-1-1970 and they thereafter surrendered this plot in favour of Barkat Ali who then obtained P.T.D. on 13-7-1970. Abdul Rehmat and Shaukat Ali gave the highest bid for Plot No. 113 which was confirmed on 15-1-1970 and the P.T.D. was then issued in their favour on 7-10-1971. Rana Jaffar Ali gave the highest bid for Plot No. 114 which was accepted on 15-1-1970 and after obtaining the P.T.D. he sold this plot to Muhammad Din respondent No.

1. Plot No. 125 was transferred through negotiations to Muhammad Din respondent. On 2-7-1972 Muhammad Din respondent submitted an application for demarcation of the Plot Nos. 112,113 and 114 sold through auction to the parties. On this application report submitted by the then Inspector was approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 7-8-1973. This order was challenged in revision and the Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 18-5-1974 remanded the case for fresh demarcation in the presence of the parties by taking into consideration the pleas that they had made Pacca constructions and were in possession of the plots before auction. The matter was again gone into by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and vide order, dated 29-1-1975 the plots were again demarcated. The petitioners being aggrieved of the order filed a revision petition but the same was dismissed as not maintainable after repeal of the Evacuee Laws. The order of demarcation was then challenged by filing the present constitution petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that by the demarcation finally made their possession prior to the auction has been disturbed with the result that now the front side of the two plots has been reduced. According to the learned counsel front on the road side of Plots Nos. 112 and 113 was 38 feet and 33 feet whereas now the front of these plots has been reduced to 29) feet and 251 feet respectively. It was contended that this reduction is contrary to the directions given by the learned Settlement Commissioner in the remand order. It is, however, conceded that the area of each of the plots as given in the auction list has not been reduced under the order of demarcation and the parties will remain in possession of the area transferred to them through auction. It is also conceded that in the auction list area of each of the plots was mentioned but this area was not detailed by giving the length and breadth of the plots. Thus the grievance is that the front of the two plots has been reduced and the possession of the parties before the auction has not been kept in view. It was further contended that after issuance of the P.T.D. the Settlement Authorities were left with no jurisdiction to demarcate the plots on the application of Muhammad Din who had purchased the plot from the auction-purchaser. There is no merit in either of these submissions. It is apparent from the site plan given in the impugned order, dated 29-1-1975 that the total length of these plots towards the road on measurement from points 'A' to 'G' comes to 70 feet. If Plot No. 112 is taken as having the front of 38 feet and Plot No. 113 is taken to have the front of 33 feet then the whole front is covered and no area will be left for Plot No.

114. Moreover, by giving that much front as is being claimed to Plots Nos. 112 and 113 the area of these two plots will be more than the area of these plots given in the auction list. Moreover, the petitioners who were the auction-purchasers were themselves not in possession of the plots before auction. They as such cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the alleged possession before the date of auction. The area transferred to them has not been reduced under the order of demarcation. It will, therefore, be seen that by the demarcation the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has only clarified the position., as to length and breadth of these plots transferred to the parties. Such clarification can legitimately be ordered after issuance of the P.T.D. In support of this view reference may be made to Abdul Hamid v. Gulab Khan and 2 others 1981 S C M R 188, Syed Amjad Ali and others v. Mian Brothers & Co. and others 1984 S C M R 961 and Sher Muhammad v. District Judge and Settlement Commissioner and 3 others 1983 C L C 1609. In any case the order, dated 29-1-1975 is a just order and I am, therefore, not inclined to allow invocation of constitutional jurisdiction which is essentially a discretionary jurisdiction. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. H . B . T .???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.