2002 PLP 953 (MLD)

Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No. l Nemo for Respondent No.7. Tasawwar Hussain Qureshi for Respondents Nos.8 to 11.. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2001. Land measuring 18 Kanals, 19 Marlas comprising Khasra number 1273/1 (8 Kanals) and 1913/1(10 Kanals, 19 Marlas), situated in Village Kanjrur, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal, is the subject- matter of dispute in this petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the same is situated in Abadi Deh and is in possession of the petitioners where they are living eversince 1946. It is' the grievance of the petitioners that respondents Nos. 2 to 7 got allotted the above mentioned land from respondent No. l on 19‑1‑1987 under the shelter of order passed by this Court on 9‑7‑1986 in Writ Petition No.218‑R of 1986. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Khasra Numbers 1273/1 and 1913/1 formed part of the Abadi Deh and were never in the temporary allotment of respondents Nos.2 to 7; and that the order passed in Writ Petition No.218‑R of 1986 has been misconstrued by respondent No. l and the allotment so obtained is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the petitioners came to know of the allotment when respondents Nos.2 to 7 approached them for vacating their respective premises who had no knowledge of any such allotment before that.

2. Respondents Nos. 8 to I1 were impleaded later on. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are not represented despite service, whereas, the learned counsel for rest of the respondents have been heard.

3. The copy of the allotment order is not on the record as, despite application by the petitioners, the same was not supplied to them. However, the factum of allotment was recorded in Roznamcha Waqiati which incorporates the order. The perusal whereof shows that the allotment was made in pursuance of order dated 9‑7‑1986, passed in Writ Petition No.218‑R of 1986. While disposing of the Writ Petition No.218/R of 1986, it was observed as follows:‑‑ "The original R.L.II Register brought by Sadiq Ali Qanungo, Shakargarh shows that the land in dispute was proposed in favour of petitioners' predecessor. It is in cultivating possession of the petitioners eversince its allotment was proposed in their favour. It is still available. In these .circumstances, I direct that the Notified Officer shall verify the facts and if found correct shall perform his statutory function in confirming the allotment without prejudice to the right of the third party, if any. The direction to the Notified Officer concerned was with regard to the "land in dispute" which formed part of proposal of respondents Nos.2 to 7 and in their cultivating possession. It was in this context that, the Notified Officer had to verify the facts and if found correct had to perform his statutory function without prejudice to the right of the third party, if any. The petitioners seriously disputed that the land in dispute was never proposed for allotment to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents Nos.2 to 7 nor was in their possession. It is their grievance that not only that the Notified Officer did not. verify the facts, even no notice was given to the petitioners and adverse order was passed without application of mind. Needless to observe that the Notified Officer was obliged and duty bound to verify the facts and had to confirm the allotment thereafter, without prejudice to the right of the third party, if any. Some material has been placed on record by the petitioners in support of their claim that the disputed land was situated in Abadi Deh, which was never proposed for allotment and could not be legally allotted/confirmed in favour of the respondents. These are questions of fact which were to be verified by the Notified officer which he failed to do. In view whereof, the allotment qua the disputed land cannot be regarded to have been made in correct and true compliance of the direction of this Court contained in order dated 9‑7‑1986. The matter, therefore, will have to be remitted to the Notified Officer, who will proceed in compliance of the direction contained in order dated 9‑7‑1986, passed in Writ Petition No.218‑R of 1986, after notice and hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. H.B.T./B‑75/L Order accordingly.