2001 PLP 1152 (MLD)

Syed Mohtishamul Haq Pirzada for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th October, 2000. The Constitutional jurisdiction has been invoked by the petitioner to call in question order, dated 26‑9‑1984 and 9‑7‑1985, passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Secretary Settlement, respectively.

2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the land in dispute situated in Village Yakka Tehsil Kabirwala, was belonging to one Mango Mal, a non‑Muslim/Mehr Amir and Mehr Fareed, sons of Mehr Qasim Shabbir caste Rajput resident of Village Mohri Wala, Tehsil Kabirwala vide Mutation of Sale No.20 dated 9‑2‑1949, purchased the same from Mango Mal, the original owner of the land.

3. That on 4‑11‑1972, the present petitioner made a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act, 1958 before respondent No.2 on the ground that the land mutated in favour of Mehr Amir and Mehr Fareed is result of fraud and misrepresentation. Sardar Hayat Ullah Khan . Mokal, the Settlement Commissioner (Land) Punjab vide his order, dated 1I‑1‑1974, resumed the land. Mehr Amir etc. instituted a writ petition against the resumption of the land which was ultimately dismissed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 26‑9‑1984, observed that the petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of the land as informer. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.22‑R of 1987 which was dismissed on 21‑6‑1987 with the observation that the writ petition has been directed against order, dated 26‑9‑1984, for which no explanation for such a long delay has been given. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had filed another application for the allotment of the land resumed on his application and this application was declined on 9‑7‑1985 and the order was intimated to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being informer of the land is entitled for the allotment of the resumed land. He further submitted that while passing the order dated 30‑12‑1984 on his application he has not been heard. Contentions were opposed by the Legal Advisor, present in Court.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Mehr Amir and Mehr Farid obtained that land vide Mutation No. 20 dated 9‑2‑1949. The land was not allotted to them under Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act, 1958. The Custodian had issued a notification declaring the properties left by the non‑Muslims as Evacuee Property and when this land was mutated in favour of Mehr Amir and Mehr Farid the said land was not declared as evacuee. Although the mutation in favour of the vendees Mehr Farid etc. has been cancelled but this land was declared as concealed property. The land in favour of Mehr Farid etc. had never been allotted by the Rehabilitation Settlement Authorities under the Settlement Law when the mutation in dispute was made. There was no law prevailing for the allotment of the evacuee land. The evacuee property was declared by the Custodian on 1‑1‑1957 and thereafter the allotment of the evacuee properties was made to the evacuees from India against their verified claims. Therefore, the Settlement Authorities validly observed that the petitioner is not entitled for the allotment of the land as informer. Against order, dated 26‑9‑1984, the earlier Writ Petition No.22‑R of 19871 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The second Mukhbari application was filed by the, petitioner after the repeal of the Settlement Laws, therefore, if the Board of Revenue has dismissed the application of the petitioner and declared that he is not entitled for the allotment of the land, committed no illegality.

7. For the foregoing reasons I see no force in this writ petition which is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑207/L Petition dismissed.