1983 PLP 2148 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhuttar for Petitioners. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondent No.

5. Respondent No. 7 in person Nemo for the, Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1982, The private parties to this petition are contesting the allotment of land measuring 91 Kanals 3 Marlas which was allotted to respondent No. 5, against her claim. It formed part of 282 Kanals of land which had been cancelled from the name of Lai Shah in village Nangal Doona Singh Gujranwala.

2. After the cancellation of the land from the Khata of Lai Shah, the disputed land was proposed in the name of respondent No. 5, on 18th February, 1971. The proceedings for confirmation, however, could not be concluded as the vendees from Lai Shah started civil litigation. Subsequently, in 1974, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed all the settlement authorities to cancel all the proposals which had not as yet been finalised. The matter came up before this Court in Inayat Bibi v. Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1974 Lab. 539) when it was decided that the proposals, being pending, proceedings, had to be considered and decided under section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Chief Settlement Commissioner then issued a fresh letter directing all the settlement authorities to consider the proposals already made and decide the same in accordance with law. It is, therefore, that the proposal made in 1971 was confirmed in favour of respondent No. 5.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no proposal made on 18th February, 1971, and that it was a mere suggestion. We have gone through the same and‑ find that there was in fact a proposal which was accepted on behalf of respondent No.

5. It was, therefore, a pending proceeding and had to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the rule laid down by this Court in the case referred to above.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on M. Z. Khan v. Aziz Ahmad (1970 S C M R 534) but the same is not applicable to this case. As stated above it was a pending proceeding under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and had to be decided in accordance with law under section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act.

5. The petitioners are tenants. They would be entitled to only such land and bad not been allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settle ment) Act and was available for further disposal. In the case in hand, the land in dispute had been lawfully allotted to respondent No. 5, under the above said Act. No land was, therefore, available to be transferred to the petitioners under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Person Laws (Repeal) Act. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition and the .same is dismissed leaving. the parties to bear their own costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.