1984 PLP 1392 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that land measuring 12 Kanals and 2 Marlas was proposed in the name of the petitioner on 17‑4‑1959, but before it could be confirmed the same was proposed in the name of Muhammad Sharif respondent No.7 on 13‑11‑1959, without any notice to the petitioner or and before first canceling the earlier proposal in his favour. Fifteen days later, on 29‑11‑1959 the land in question was confirmed in the name of respondent No.7, again without any notice to the petitioner. A month later, on 29‑12‑1959, Muhammad Sharif respondent sold the said land to respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Earlier proposal in the name of Bashir Ahmad Khan petitioner was confirmed on 19‑4‑1960. Subsequently on 16‑4‑1964, the allotment of land in question was cancelled from the name of Muhammad Sharif respondent on account of double allotment. Respondents 1 to 3 who had purchased the land in question, felt aggrieved against this cancellation and filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The same was dismissed as being time‑barred. They then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner which. too, was dismissed. Therefore they filed a writ petition before the High Court which was accepted in November, 1971 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh decision.

2. On remand the Settlement Commissioner again dismissed the revision petition. after hearing the parties, on the ground that the land in question could not have allotted to Muhammad Sharif, respondent No.7. as it had already been allotted to the petitioner. Respondents

1. To 3 filed another Writ Petition No. 298‑R‑74 before the High Court which was. accepted vide the impugned judgment on the ‑ground .Thai in the case' of the petitioner the land had merely been proposed in his favour, while the proposal of the same land in favour of Muhammad Sharif respondent NQ.7 had already been confirmed, when he sold the land to respondents 1 to

3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the above noted judgment of the High Court.

3. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph No.68 (Part‑II) of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme which provides that after the proposals have been made by the Tehsildar or the relevant Revenue Official, the competent Rehabilitation Officer would visit the concerned village and examine the proposals and after satisfying himself will announce the proposed allotments to the claimants who shall at the same time be asked if they have any objection to the proposals within 15 days. It is further provided that after the expiry of the 15 days the Revenue Official will again visit the village and provisionally finalize the proposals subject to the final confirmation. Sub‑para. (3) provides, inter alia, that if the concerned Rehabilitation Officer is satisfied that no objection has been filed within the stipulated time (15 days) he need not pay the second visit to such estates, send for the records of this estate and confirm the allotment. The learned counsel relied on Ghulam Nabi v. Noor Muhammad and others 1971 Law Notes 15 to argue that if there is no objection within 15 days, the proposal is automatically confirmed or at least the Settlement Officer is bound by para. 68 (3) to confirm it.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department supported the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that paragraph No.68 provides a very elaborate procedure for confirma tion of the proposals of allotment, that certain conditions have to be fulfilled before a proposal can be confirmed and that proposals cannot be, therefore, deemed to be confirmed automatically after the expiry of 15 days, if there are no objections.

6. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties we think that this is a fit case for grant of leave to determine the true scope and intendment of paragraph No.68 (Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme Part II), which question arises for determination frequently and is a question of general public importance. Leave is, therefore, granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,

500. Status quo as to possession shall be maintained. S.Q. Leave granted.