1980 PLP 1650 (CLC)

(c) Azad .hImrnu & Kashmir Evacuee Property (Multiple Allotment) Act, r1961._

Multiple allotment-Petitioner's minor sorts included in former allotment of land which once subject of multiple allotment before Multiple Allotment Judge-Any subsequent allotment of such pro perty taken in favour of other members of family of a refugee obtaining allotment of evacuee property to full extent prescribed by law as h- .d of family, held, a multiple allotment. B. A. Farooqi and Ch. Nazir Ahmed for Petitioners. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, J.-This writ petition calls in question the order dated 13th June, 1976 of the learned Multiple Allot ment Judge on the following grounds :- (1) That the impugned order was passed by the Multiple Allotment Judge in absence of the parties who should have either waited for the counsel of the petitioners who was busy somewhere in a Court ref law or should have dismissed the complaint in default r and (2) That the Multiple Allotment Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question of the cancellation of allotment of the evacuee property standing in the names of the petitioners under the pro provisions of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Evacuee Property (Multiple) Allotment Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the petitioners were heard. Both the parties in the complaint had been in attendance before the Multiple Allotment Judge for sometimes during the investigation of the case but when it was called on for hearing on 13th June, 1916, none of them appeared before him and so he had to proceed with the case for its disposal which he did on merits. There is no procedure prescribed for investigation of the cases brought before the Multiple Allotment Judge under the provisions of Multiple Allot ment Act and as such the question did not arise to dismiss the complaint in default because it is purely the function of the Multiple Allotment Judge himself to investigate the factunt of multiple allotment of the evacuee pro perty standing in the name of a person. The learned Multiple Allotment Judge had had the material before him to proceed with the case even though the parties were found absent at the time the case was called on by the said' Judge. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the land in dispute at first stood alloted to the fathers of the petitioners over .and above the scale prescribed as a result of which, provisions of the Multiple Allotment Act were passed into service against them and so the cancel lation of allotment. of the property in dispute was made by the Multiple Allotment Judge vide his order dated 11th October, 1972. After the, cancellation of the allotment of the property in question from the names of the fathers of the petitioners, land measuring 128 kanals was still allowed to remain with them according to the scale prescribed by law and portion of the remaining land struck off from their names was ordered to be allotted to some deserving person. Again, the same land which was taken away from the fathers of the petitioners was got allotted by the former in the names of their sons who were also included in the old allot ments of their fathers. It is so held by the learned Multiple Allotment Judge. It has not been contended here in the writ petition by the petitioners that they were not included in the allotments of their fathers and further that they formed separate families excluding their fathers. A refugee family is only entitled to an allotment of 64 kanals to agricultural land out of evacuee property as the disposal of the Rehabilitation authorities for the. purpose. Behram-ud-Din and Qaim-ud-Din who are the real brothers, had to take refuge in Azad Kashmir in the year 1947 and at that time their sons, namely Mumtaz Hussain and Ghulam Hnssain were admittedly minor and thus were evidently included in the former allotment of the land which had once become a subject of Multiple Allotment before the Multiple Allotment Judg6 in the year 1962. Evidently any subsequent allotment of such pro perty taken in favaur of other members of the family of a refugee who has obtained in allotment of evacuee property to the full extent prescribed by law as head of the family, shall also obtain a multiple allotment and thus this case is nothing else but legally 'a natural consequence amounting to multi ple allotment by reconstitution of allotment more than the scale prescribed for a family being a refugee that is to say as in the instant case which (allotment) cannot be avoided in any. way. . For the reasons above, we see no force in this writ petition which stands dismissed in limine. M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.