1990 SCMR 101 (PLP)

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslant Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Respondents Nos. 1, 8 to 17: Ex parte. Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwal, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos.2 to

7. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant f to examine the effect of various decisions of the Superior Courts on the question of validity and efficacy of the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 23‑11‑1956 in implementation whereof the allotment of the appellant was tampered with and reduced to accommodate the respondents.

2. Jan Muhammad, the appellant had a verified claim of 409 P.1.Us. He got it settled in Chak No.180/EB, Tehsil and District Vehari in 1951. On the 23rd of November, 1956 the Rehabilitation Commissioner passed an order whereby the allotments made in this and other adjoining chaks were all cancelled and it was directed that the allotments should be made afresh keeping in view the law and the instructions given by him on the subject. This revisional order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 23‑11‑1956 was successfully challenged by Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 1958 Lah. 48) and in Writ Petition No.605/R of 1958 in which the appellant was a party. The other Constitution Petition filed on the subject of allotment under or in avoidance of the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner was disposed of by holding that the parties to the litigation were bound by the decision given in the cases to which they were parties. It was pursuant to such a decision of the High Court and the decision in the case of Abdul Hafeez v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (P L D 1906 S C 483) that the Settlement Authorities proceeded to readjust the allotments. In doing so a part of the land earlier allotted to the appellant was confirmed to the respondents. This aggrieved the appellant who filed the Constitution Petition No. 238/R of 1979 challenging the resumption from his allotment on various grounds. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the Constitution Petition by observing as hereunder:‑ "Petitioner in this case was allotted land in 1951 at Khata No.66 comprising of Killas Nos. 16, 24, 25 min measuring 28 kanals and 18 marlas. Petitioner was not a party to the writ petition 605/R/58. This allotment stood cancelled in view of the order of Mr. LU. Khan dated 23‑11‑1956. While making afresh allotment petitioner's temporary allotment comprising Killa No. 19 of square No.10 has been kept intact. Besides, he has been given allotment in square No.6 Killa No.8 min, square No.4 Killa No.15 min, square No.20 Killa No.12 min, 13 min, 1.8 min, 19 min. The area allotted to the petitioner in the year 1951 has gone to its temporary allottees i.e. respondents in this case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order now impugned before me which r; just and proper. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly."

3. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant urges the same ground as he had taken up before the High Court in defending the allotment made to the appellant in 1951. He also pointed out the various decisions in the field and the effect thereof on the entitlement of the appellant.

4. The two grounds which have been made the basis for the Constitution petition in the High Court were that the allotment made in 1951 in his favour had remained intact throughout and that the property so allotted to him had gone out of the compensation pool and was not at all available to be allotted to the respondents. In resuming the land or in making its allotment to the respondents the appellant was not at all given any notice, associated with the proceedings or even informed of it. On this ground it is said that the orders passed were a nullity.

5. A review of the history of the proceedings that took place in the case starting from 1951 makes it clear that all those allotments which were made up to 23‑11‑1956 were held by the Rehabilitation Commissioner to be suspect and in violation of the law. After a general notice to the allottees and hearing those who appeared before him, the Rehabilitation Commissioner passed a revisional order on 23‑‑11‑1956 whereby he quashed all these allotments. This quashment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Hafeez (PLD 19X)6 SC 483). Thereafter the direction was that allotments should be made in accordance with law and the policy guidelines given by him. It was pursuant to it that the allotments were made in favour of the respondents. The quashment of the allotment of the appellant having taken place, he was left with no vested right except to the extent of his own temporary allotment. It is not his case that any part of his temporary allotment was resumed from him and allotted to the respondents. On the contrary the facts stated and held established show that it was the temporary allotment of the respondents which was restored to them. Even if that be not so, the appellant in order to succeed had to show that any part of his temporary allotment itself had been made the subject‑matter of resumption from him and allotment to others in derogation of his claim to it. 6.No merit is found in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./J‑52/S Appeal dismissed.