1984 PLP 1987 (CLC)

S. 2‑On a reference to Deputy Commissioner, Mukhtiarkar issued a notice to petitioners to show how land was mutated an their favour-- Petitioners challenging same on ground that after repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 19513, Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain any new petition‑Held: Prima facie jurisdiction under Land Settlement Act was not invoked and it seemed improper to tie down hands of Deputy Commissioner from enquiring into matter departmentally or otherwise‑Open to petitioners to raise any question of jurisdiction before Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner restrained from exercising any jurisdiction under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Maroof Ali Khan for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Muhammad Ali Chohan for Respondent No. 4. The dispute in this case relates to agricultural land comprising two Survey numbers bearings Nos. 474/3 and 474/4 situate in Deh Sumir, Taluka Shahadpur, District Sanghar. The petitioners claim to have purchased these survey numbers in open Kutchery from the Government after this land was surrendered by the original allottee under Martial Law Regulation No. 89. The immediate cause of action according to the petitioner accrued to him on account of a notice issued by the Mukhtiarkar, Shahdadpur in consequence to an application filed by respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Hyderabad alleging that these lands had been wrongfully entered in the name of the petitioners. The case of respondent No. 4 is that this land was originally allotted to respondent No. 3 but subsequently his allotment was cancelled on 15‑11‑1973 before which respondent No. 4 had purchased the disputed land from respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 challenged the order of cancellation of his allotment in Writ Petition No. 712 of 1974 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his judgment, dated 10‑4‑1979, whereby the order of cancellation of the allotment of respondent No. 3 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after bearing all the parties concerned, who might be interested in the land in question. It is urged by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition by an order, dated 29‑3‑1976 this Court had confirmed the stay earlier granted. The argument is that during the operation of the stay order passed by this Court the Government had no right to dispose of the property to the petitioners in open auction. However, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the land in dispute in this petition was not shown as land allotted to respondent No. 3 in his Khatooni filed alongwith the previous petition. Whatever may be the position as to the question whether the land presently claimed by the petitioners was or was not a part of the land allotted to respondent No. 3, the clear position is that the present petition was admitted to regular hearing on the basis of Court. Petitions Nos. 107/79 and 50/80 which were earlier admitted on the point that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the relevant Authorities under the Repealing Ordinance of 1975 had no jurisdiction to entertain any new petition, but were required only to dispose of pending case. In the present case the copy of the application filed by respondent No. 4 before Martial Law Authorities is on the record as well as the notice issued by the Mukhtiarkar. It is common ground that the matter has been referred to Dupty Commissioner and the Mukhtiarkar had issued notices to the petitioners to appear before the Deputy Commissioner as to how the lands have been mutated in their Khata. It, therefore, prima facie appears to me that the jurisdiction under Land Settlement Act has not been invoked either by the respondent No. 4 or the relevant Authorities. In the present petition, therefore, at this stage it seems improper to tie down the hands of the Deputy Commissioner from enquiring into the matter departmentally or otherwise. I, therefore, vacate the interim order and allow the proceedings to continue. It will be open to the petitioners to raise any question of jurisdiction before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner is restrained from exercising any jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on the applications of respondent No. 4, dated 6‑6‑1979 and 13‑12‑1979 or to dispossess the petitioners otherwise than in due course of law. This application is disposed of in these terms. M. B. A. Order accordingly.