1998 PLP 590 (SCMR)

MAMOON KAZI, J. ‑‑‑The brief facts of the case are that, Claim Form No.7538 was submitted by one Saroopa, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and the same was verified by the Central .Record Office and land equivalent to 1355 PIUs was confirmed in his favour in village Bhoe Asal on 16‑3‑1955.

2. On 5‑1‑1969 Girdawar Halqa reported that the said Saroopa who held land in India as landlord or occupancy tenant was entitled to only 871 PIUs in Village Bhoe Asal, Gaggar and Ghandi Autar.

3. The report which, according to the petitioners, was based on wrong allegations, was made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 14‑1‑1969 against which the petitioners filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, which although, was accepted and the case was remanded for a fresh disposal, but respondent No. 1, who then dealt with the case of the petitioners, cancelled the Units held in excess vide order dated 27‑5‑1976. The petitioners filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore but without any success. Thereafter, the land in question was confirmed in favour of respondent No.2 who further transferred the same in favour of respondent No.3 vide Mutation No. 1067 which was sanctioned on 29‑5‑1970. ,

4. The petitioners challenged the orders by a Constitutional petition but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 12‑6‑1995.

5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that order of cancellation was passed in the case without notice to the petitioners and that, in any case, the petitioners were entitled to purchase the excess land, if any, on deposit of the amount due especially when they were in self‑cultivating possession of the land in dispute. It has been further contended that respondent No.2 was not entitled for allotment of any land as his claim form was not transferred to village Bhoe Asal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Mst. Nasiran v. Mst. Rabia (1992 SCMR 693) wherein it was held that informer would be entitled to the transfer of excess area under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 if allotment of cancelled land is found to have been obtained by fraud or the same was bogus. It was further held that where excess land was obtained due to miscalculation of produce Index Units on the part of the field staff and not due to fraud, informer would not be entitled to transfer of excess area. In the present case, apparently, There were no allegations that excess area had been allotted in favour of the petitioners' predecessor on account of any fraud practised by him.

6. Leave is therefore, granted to consider whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners was liable to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. Status quo shall continue pending final disposal of the case. A.A./F‑280/S Leave granted.