2005 PLP 1380 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Civil Petitions Nos.2972-L to 2989-L of 2000 are being disposed of together through this single order as all of them involve identical facts and similar questions of law.

2. The respondents/their predecessors-in-interest migrated from India as a result of the partitioning of the Sub-Continent and settled in Village Ghazi Kakka of Tehsil Ferozewala in District Sheikhupura where they were allotted lands against their verified claims. The lands falling in the said village Ghazi Kakka got included in the Border Belt whereafter the above mentioned allotments made in favour of the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest were cancelled which finally led them to the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.930/R of 1970 and others complaining inter alia, that they had been condemned unheard as the impugned action had been taken against them without notice to them and without affording any opportunity to them to defend against the same. All these writ petitions were decided by the learned High Court through a common judgment, dated 6-10-1979. The operative paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-- "I accept these petitions and remand the cases to the Border Area Committee for an inquiry in each case after giving notice to all concerned. If it is found that the petitioners or any of the petitioners allotment, as the case may, is/are valid, the allotment/allotments to the respondents in such case/cases shall stand set aside and if the petitioners or any of the petitioners are/is found to have obtained allotment/allotments fraudulently, the allotment/ allotments in favour of the respondents to that extent shall not be effected. Parties will be at liberty to lead evidence and raise points both of facts and law as may be open before the respondents committee."

3. It, however, appears from the record that the Border Area Committee did not implement the said command of the High Court and instead allotted the suit-land to various high ranking Army Officers whose names appear in the order of the Notified Officer dated 4-9-1995 and need not be repeated here. The respondents were then allegedly pressurized, through registration of the criminal cases and otherwise into abandoning their respective claims against the said lands in question and were finally offered alternative pieces of land in Tehsil Lodhran of the then District Multan through an order, dated 13-10-1986. However, possession of the said alternative pieces of land could not be delivered to the respondents as the same was with the Forest Department.

4. This took the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest back to the Lahore High Court where a statement was made by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the matter in question would be resolved by the Board of Revenue in pursuance of which statement the writ petitions filed by the respondents/predecessors-in-interest were disposed of on 31-5-1992. The matter/representations made by the said respondents were entrusted by the Board of Revenue to Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah the then Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer who commenced an inquiry into the entitlement of the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest and recorded the statements of at least 14 persons including the Patwaris in the said connections. The said Notified Officer also took steps to find out whether any evacuee land was available elsewhere in the Province to settle the respondents. On the transfer of said Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah the case was entrusted to Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer through an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 9-3-1994. The said Notified Officer continued the proceedings, examined further witnesses including a member of the Border Area Committee, perused the entire record and finally came to the conclusion through an order dated 4-9-1995 that nothing existed on record which could establish that the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest were not entitled to the allotment of lands. That the respondents had shown willingness to accept alternative pieces of land in different Districts of Province i.e. Kasur, Sialkot, Sheikhupura, Layyah, Muzaffargarh, D.G. Khan, Lahore, Multan, Bhakkar and Rawalpindi, therefore, they were finally settled on the said pieces of land.

5. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/the Member, Board of Revenue, however, felt unhappy about the settlement and rehabilitation of these displaced persons/their successors as a result of a long struggle made by the respondents spreading over a period of more than thirty years and consequently questioned the abovementioned order of the Notified Officer dated 4-9-1995 through 18 writ petitions filed by him in the Lahore High Court. These writ petitions bearing Writ Petitions Nos.100/R to 117/R of 1999 were heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court and were dismissed through a judgment dated 13-9-2000.

6. Hence these petitions again by the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab.

7. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the record.

8. The conduct of the Chief Settlement Commissioner/M.B.R. in filing writ petitions in the High Court in the matter in question and then wasting further public time and money in approaching this Court through the present petitions is appalling.

9. As has been mentioned above, the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest were settled in village Ghazi Kakka of District Sheikhupura after being displaced and uprooted as a result of the partitioning of the Sub-Continent. After about 15/20 years of their settlement on the said lands, the allotments made in their favour were cancelled unilaterally by the Border Area Committee without any notice or opportunity to the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest to show cause against the same. We are shocked at the conduct of the Border Area Committee which had elected not .to obey the command of the Lahore High Court made through the above-mentioned judgment dated 6-10-1979 and which Committee had instead allotted the lands in question to some Army Officers. The respondents/their predecessors-in interest appear to have been coerced into abandoning their claim vis- -vis the said lands and into accepting alternative pieces of land in a far off District of Lodhran and even those lands offered to them could not be given to them as the same were in the possession of the Forest Department which again sucked the respondents into further litigation during the course of which litigation a statement/commitment was made by a learned Additional Advocate-General that the cases of the respondents/their predecessors-in-interest would be considered by the Board of Revenue in pursuance of which statement/commitment Writ Petition No.104/R of 1992 was disposed of by the learned High Court on 31-5-1992.

10. To say the least, it does not lie in the mouth of the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner to say that the Notified Officer who had passed the order in question dated 4-9-1995 pursuant to the entrustment of the matter to him by the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself in pursuance of the commitment made by their representative i.e. the learned Additional Advocate-General before the Lahore High Court, had acted illegally and without jurisdiction.

11. Secondly, the Lahore High Court, through the abovementioned order, dated 6-10-1979, had given a free hand to the Border Area Committee to re-examine the claim and the entitlement of the respondents and to cancel the allotments of land made in their favour if their claims were found fake or forged. The Border Area Committee does not claim to have found that the respondents were not entitled to the land given to them and in fact confirmed their entitlement by offering them alternative land in District Lodhran. The decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner not to permit rehabilitation/settlement of the respondents even after more than 50 years of their displacement and to de-settle them once again, if settled, is heard to understand. As no order or findings were shown to us which could have declared the respondents as not entitled to any land, therefore, the least that the respondents deserved and the least that the State could do for them was to settle them somewhere on this earth. It was a grace shown by the respondents, either under coercion or through their free volition, that they expressed their willingness to abandon the lands where they had lived for more than 15 years and which pieces of land they had developed and improved and to have shown willingness to get scattered in different parts of the Province including far off distant areas. We are shocked that despite such a conduct on the part of the respondents, the Chief Settlement Commissioner/M.B.R. is not ready to give them a chance to exist on this planet. The above-mentioned order of the Notified Officer dated 4-9-1995 besides operating as an estoppel against the C.S.C./M.B.R., was an order which had done justice to the respondents and needless to say that the superior Courts have always refused to interfere with an action which advanced the cause of justice and which undid a manifest wrong done to a helpless and suffering party.

12. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner could also offer no explanation about the inordinate delay of at least 5 years in approaching the Lahore High Court against an order dated 4-9-1995 through writ petitions filed in the year 1999.

13. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that the C.S.C./M.B.R. was estopped by his own conduct from questioning the order of the Notified Officer dated 4-9-1995; that the said order, dated 4-9-1995 had ensured justice to the suffering respondents; that the conduct of the Border Area Committee is not restoring the allotments of the lands in village Ghazi Kakka to the respondents in pursuance of the order of the Lahore High Court dated 6-10-1979 was contemptuous which operated at least as a factor warranting sympathy and fairplay for the respondents and that the writ petitions filed in the Lahore High Court were hit by laches. Consequently, we are of the opinion that these petitions which are calculated to prolong the agony of the respondents are without merit. The same are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

14. In the above noticed peculiar circumstances, the respondents who had suffered at the hands of the C.S.C./M.B.R. deserved to be compensated for the miseries caused to them. The petitioner is burdened with token costs of Rs.5,000 in each of these petitions which costs shall be paid to each of the respondents in these petitions within one month. The receipts acknowledging the said payments shall be sent to the Assistant Registrar of this Court for the information of this Bench. M.H./M-274/S Leave refused. ***