1974 PLP 43 (SCMR)

Din Muhammad v. Ahmad 1971 S C M R 490 ref. Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 28th June 1973. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, who are displaced persons, were provisionally allotted land in village Nagaur, District Sialkot, against their verified claim. Later, on a re‑verification of their entitlement they were found to have obtained about 52 kanals each in excess of his entitlement. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) accordingly cancelled the excess area vide order dated 4‑2‑1963 against which the petitioners filed an appeal before tile Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) who accepted the same vide order dated 27‑11‑1964. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who, it appears, had lodged information about the excess allotment and who had their claims pending for satisfaction in the same village, filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The revision was accepted on 3‑5‑1966 and the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner cancelling the excess allotment was restored. A writ petition moved by the petitioners against the order in revision having failed, they have filed this petition for special leave against the order of a learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 being mere informers had no locus standi to file revision before the Settle ment Commissioner. It was also urged that the initial allotment in favour of the petitioners was made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) and therefore the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) who had inferior rank was not competent to cancel the allotment of excess area. And finally that no fraud was alleged against the petitioners and excess area was allotted to them because in the Fard‑i‑Haqiat issued in their favour, the assessment circle was shown as "Indhar" while actually the same was "Bet Ravi" and therefore not being parties to the mistaken description of the assessment circles, the petitioners should be allowed to retain the excess area. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the excess area allotted to the petitioners was cancelled after due enquiry by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Room, who found it as a fact that the assess ment circle of the land allotted to the petitioners was "Bet Ravi" and not "Indhar". On that find, a revised Fard‑i‑Haqiat was issued to the petitioners by the Central Record Room and as a result of that the excess allotment hitherto made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) pursuant to the order of the,, O. S. D. (CRR) and not in exercise of his own power, Even otherwise, it is not denied that the area held by the petitioners having regard to the quality of land is in excess of their due entitlement. Therefore, there is hardly any ground for interference by this Court, in its special jurisdiction. It was finally urged by learned counsel that since no fraud is alleged against the petitioners they may be allowed to retain the excess area on payment. In support of this he relied on the observations of this Court in Din Muhammad v. Ahmad (1971 S C M R 490). This is however a matter entirely in the dis cretion of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who may, if he considers the petitioners as a specially deserving case, allow them to retain land in 5 accordance with the instructions in letter No. 7511‑66/239‑R(L) dated the 6th May 1966. For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.