1986 PLP 769 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Settlement Deptt. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1984. This writ petition has been filed by Mst.Kaniz Fatima who admittedly is one of the informers‑who laid information before the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding bogus allotment in Pakki Thatti, Lahore.

2. The impugned order of Mr. Waheed‑ud‑Din Rathore, Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 3‑6‑1974 shows that he took up the proceedings on the Mukhbari applications of four persons. The petitioner was one of them. Thereafter, he held that the allotment obtained at Khata No.27 measuring 40 Kanals 13 Marlas to the extent of 416 P.I. Units was fraudulently secured and the same was cancelled in exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It was further directed that the mesne profits should be recovered from Zahoor Hussain, the fictitious general attorney who sold the area in question, vide registered deed No.6732, dated 5 8‑1966 to Shujaat Khan, the first vendee. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector was required to recover the amount of mesne profits. Thereafter, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order has observed thus: "As far as the other informers are concerned, they have no locus standi as they were subsequent informers and as such they do not qualify as informers. Shehzad Nazir who has become a party in this case cannot be treated as informer."

3. There is no conscious application of mind of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner to the question of the informers. Indeed, it was necessary for him while observing as noted above to have treated somebody as an informer and then on that basis held other informers as having no locus standi. A perusal of the order shows that no informer was given any benefit. Therefore, it is difficult to appreciate how the petitioner was excluded on the basis of somewhat confused observation.

4. The petitioner asserts that out of the area of 40 Kanals 13 Marlas cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, there is some area still available. I think, the petitioner has been able to make out a case. She should accordingly appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) who would examine the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of being treated as an informer while no other person is contesting for the same benefit. Secondly, whether there is some area which has not been sold away by the Department to the vendees and balance is still available to meet the pending units of the petitioner. Such like matters are to be decided on humane, compassionate and equitable considerations. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner would receive a fair treatment at the hands of the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing).

5. The impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 3‑6‑1974 is modified only to the extent of the question of grant of benefit of an informer to the petitioner. Should the petitioner's plea appeal to the good conscience of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, and she should be able to meet the requirements of law, he would pass appropriate orders and grant her the relief to which she may be legally found due. Earlier in the day, Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, the learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department who appeared was heard and he stated with candid frankness that he would have no objection to the remand of the case to the extent of this limited question to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, which would entail of course a factual inquiry.

6. The writ petition is accepted in the above terms and the case of the petitioner is remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) in so far as the question of grant of benefit of an informer is concerned. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. M . Y . H . Writ accepted.