1988 PLP 1118 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal; one is from the main judgment of the High Court and the other is against the dismissal of the review petition directed against the main judgment.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to a plot of land falling in Khasras Nos.1735 and 1736, measuring about 1 Kanal situate in Ralgarh, Lahore. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar, respondent No.1, was allotted about 8 kanals of land in Rajgarh, Lahore, against her claim for urban agricultural land. Subsequently, an area measuring about one kanal was withdrawn from her allotment on the ground that it formed part of a road. However, it was directed that she should be given alternate equivalent lard. She then applied for the allotment of the plot in dispute. By an order, dated 2‑2‑1970, the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected her application on the ground that the said plot was a building site and as such could not be allotted to her. She filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. By an order, dated 13‑8‑1970, the learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal and directed that the said plot be allotted to her to the extent of her entitlement. Later, she filed an application for the implementation of the order of 13‑8‑1970. Her application was accepted, and by an order, dated 4‑11‑1972, the Settlement Commissioner (Land) directed that the allotment of the plot be made and confirmed in her favour with effect from 13‑8‑1970.

3. On 25‑5‑1971 the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued a notification under section 2(3)(b), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, declaring all available evacuee land, situate in Rajgarh and other localities of Lahore, including the land which had not yet been confirmed, as Building Sites for disposal under section 13 of the Act.

4. The plot in question alongwith some other land was in the occupation of the petitioners. They had even raised some construction over it. They applied for its transfer under re‑constituted Scheme No.VIII. Their application was accepted and by an order, dated 29‑5‑1974, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the plot in their favour.

5. Thus, two orders of transfer relating to the same plot came into existence; one was made by Land Settlement authorities in favour of respondent No.1 and the other was made by the Settlement authorities acting under the West Pakistan (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act in favour of the petitioners. Both parties approached the Provincial Government on the administrative side. By an order, dated 28‑8‑1976, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directed that they should have recourse to a proper Court of law. 5‑A. It was in this background that respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner of 28‑8‑1976 and order, dated 29‑5‑1974 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner whereby the land in dispute was transferred to the petitioners. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that as the plot in question had already been transferred to respondent No.1, it was no longer available property which could be allotted to the petitioners. Accordingly, he set aside the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners then filed a review petition from the order of the learned Single Judge but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the plot in dispute could not be transferred to respondent No.1 against he claim for urban agricultural land. In support of this contention it is stated that a few years before independence a housing scheme had already been approved which included the land in dispute. It had, therefore, become a building site even before independence. The petitioners were in occupation of the land and had constructed house and a shed thereon. In the circumstances, the land in dispute could not be disposed of by the Land, Settlement authorities a agricultural urban land.

7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted in both the petitions. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000 in each petition. The appeals may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. The order with regard to interim relief already made on 9‑12‑1986 to continue during the pendency of the appeals. S.Q./M‑401/S Leave granted