1991CLC2091 (PLP)

Rana Abdul Majid for Petitioners. Hamid Ali Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th July, 1991., The validity/propriety of the order of Secretary (R), Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing, Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 27‑6‑1979, is called in question in this Constitution petition.

2. The facts of this case, are that one Rakmoo was allotted agricultural land measuring 7 Kanals and 4 Marlas in revenue estate Kuthiala Virkan, Tehsil Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura in lieu of 60 units. He was further allotted 46 Kanals and 12 Marlas by means of order dated 10‑4‑1954 in lieu of 196 units. He secured another allotment of agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals and 10 Marlas on 18‑2‑1956 in the same revenue estate. After securing allotments, the said right-holder made the sale of whole of the land in favour of Ghulam Rasool and Falak Sher through two mutations bearing Nos.l82 and 36 attested on 2‑6‑1972 and 30‑6‑1970, respectively; that in pursuance of an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Mian Waheed‑ud‑Din Rathor, Settlement Commissioner, with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in favour of Rakmoo by holding that Rakmoo had manoeuvred to obtain entitlement-certificate twice from the Central Record Room. He further directed the present vendee‑petitioners to make an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the purchase of this land. Feeling dissatisfied with this order, the petitioners filed a Constitution petition bearing W.P. No. 1180/R‑77 which was dismissed on merit by my learned brother Khalilur Rahman, J., by order dated 24‑6‑1978. Thereafter again the petitioners submitted an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for permission to purchase the resumed land. This request was rejected by means of order dated 27‑6‑1979. Hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners vendees had been in possession of the land since 1970 and 1972, the petitioners had undefeasible right to purchase the property under proviso to section 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975). According to the learned counsel the respondents had no authority to decline the sale of land resumed from Rakmoo to the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Settlement Department, stated that the conduct of the petitioners disentitled them to obtain this relief on the simple premises that in the initial order it was proposed that the petitioners should make an application for purchase. Having not done so, they have forfeited their right to purchase the land. Reliance was placed on Mir Salah‑ud‑Din v. Administrator (Residual Property) and 6 others (PLD 1983 Lah. 502).

5. I am afraid I do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. The right granted to the occupants is indefeasible. The authorities are obliged to offer the resumed property to the occupants in crucial harvest. It is not disputed that petitioners had been in possession of the land in dispute upto the passing of the impugned order and are still in possession. They have been making efforts to purchase the land. Their status as occupants at the time of crucial period is not declined. In view of this discussion I have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that they have right to purchase the land and the impugned order is without jurisdiction and without any lawful authority and it is declared as such. The respondents are directed to sell the land to the petitioners in accordance with the law. The petitioners shall approach the competent authorities for this purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑490/L Petition accepted.