1986 PLP 727 (MLD)

Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and

2. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Respondent No.3. Khizar Abbas for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1983. The two connected writ petitions, being Writ Petitions Nos. 725/11 and 725/11 of 1977, which impugn the orders of an Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner of the same date, i.e. 18‑3‑1977; are being disposed of by this consolidated judgment.

2. All the learned counsel appearing in these cases agree that the impugned orders passed in the two cases have left a lot to be desired and they do not reflect a proper application of mind of respondent No.2 to the requirements of law as well as the factual aspects.

3. It is pointed out that in so far as Writ Petition No. 724/R of 1977 is concerned, there is much confusion prevailing in the order of respondent No.2 because he, while noticing the statement of Halqa Patwari that the entitlement of the petitioner came to 250 P.I. Units, in the following paragraph observed that the area abandoned by the petitioner in Faridpur State was 15 Kanals 5 Marlas. Thereafter, a cut of 4/5th has been imposed thereby reducing his area to 55 P.I. Units. It is further complained that while doing so he has ignored the provisions of sub‑para. (2) of Paragraph 37 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme which did not warrant such a cut.

4. It appears, therefore that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has proceeded on discrepant material and left matters undecided and there has been no visible effort on his part to objectively ascertain the facts and thereafter, on application of conscious mind, to decide the case in the light of .the correct law. The case in such situation is a fit one for decision afresh. It will be open for the parties to raise all the relevant pleas and if necessary lead evidence affirmatively as well as in rebuttal.

5. In so far as Writ Petition No. 724/R of 1977 is concerned, all the learned counsel have also jointly prayed that this is also a fit case for remand in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed against the entitlement of Ali Muhammad who was specifically not impleaded as a party. The question whether Muhammad Yaqub is a legal heir of Ali Muhammad has also not been determined. In so far as the other purchasers from Ali Muhammad such as Boota, etc. are concerned, they were not party to those proceedings and thus no order to their detriment could have been passed in their absence. Similarly, in this case also, a cut of 4/5th has been enforced thereby reducing the entitlement and on that basis excess land purportedly resumed. The effect of sub‑para. (2) of Paragraph 37 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme also dogs not appear to have been taken into consideration or at any rate misread and misapplied.

6. I am of the view that the joint request of the learned counsel in these two cases is reasonable. Where questions have been left undecided by a Tribunal below or proper inquiry has not been conducted or law has been overlooked, it is proper to send the case back to the notified officer to proceed in accordance with law and to decide the issue pending before him in a just manner. It will be open for the parties from either side to raise whatever pleas they wish. I would accordingly accept these writ petitions and remand both the cases to the learned, Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Punjab, Lahore to entrust them to an authorised notified officer for disposal within next four months. Since the parties have adopted a consent course, there will be in the circumstances no order as to costs. M . Y. H . Cases remanded.