1983 PLP 566 (CLC)

"In the circumstances I consider it a fit case for remand to the Rehabilitation Commissioner‑for the verification of the claim of Chand Khan only and so far as the order relates to the entitlement of Wazir Khan its cancellation is upheld." The learned Judge was further pleased to observe that "the result is that the writ petition is accepted to the extent of half share in the land only. If on production of evidence the Rehabilitation Commissioner is satisfied that Chand Khan petitioner, whose passport has been produced before this Court, is the same person who had claimed himself as an heir of Roora son of Noor Muhammad then half the land of Rocra son of Noor Muhammad should be confirmed in his favour. In case the finding is otherwise then the allotment as made in favour of the respon dent will be allowed to stand."

3. The case on remand was taken up by the then Additional Settle ment Commissioner (Lands) who vide his order dated 27th March, 1970 recorded the finding that Chand Khan is son of Roora and thus he is entitled to retain half of the land allotted. Thereafter Chand Khan was allowed to deposit the price as the allotment was obtained against mortgagee rights and a sum of Rs. 3,962.02 is stated to have been de posited by Chand Khan. The order dated 27th March, 1970 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) was challenged before the Settlement Commissioner who, finding that the learned Judge of the High Court had remanded the case for decision to Rehabilitation Commis sioner/ Settlement Commissioner and not to Additional Settlement Com missioner, set aside the above said order. Chand Khan the predecessor -in‑interest of the petitioners, thereafter, submitted applications for disposal of the case in compliance with the remand order and on one of such application the Deputy Secretary (Rural) Passed an order directing the Tebsildar to implement the order. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that Ishtiaq informant in whose favour allotment order dated 25th May, 1960 was passed after cancellation and resumption of land from Chand Khan, etc. sold away his rights in favour of Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent No.

2. C he revenue authorities, however, refused to sanction mutation of sale in his favour and aggrieved by this refusal, Muhammad Mushtaq respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 131/11/79, but the same was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 7th May, 1979. Muhammad Mushtaq respondent No. 2 also filed another writ petition (W.P. 428/11/77) wherein the order of the Settlement Com missioner (L) dated 23rd November, 1974 directing the implementation of the order of allotment was challenged. This petition was, however, accepted vide judgment dated 11th November, 1919 and the case was sent to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore for fresh disposal in terms of the order of remand dated 15th November, 1966 passed to Writ Petition No. 2983/11!

63. The case was thereafter heard by the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore who as Settlement Commissioner (Lands) held vide order dated 29th March, 1981 that Chand Singh alias Chand Khan (since dead) or his heirs the present petitioners are not entitled to any allotment and that the land in question will remain with the respondent. In the impugned order, the reasons recorded for arriving at the above conclusion "are, that "from the copy of the documents produced it was apparent that death of Rura son of Noor Muhammad occurred in 1949 in India which indicates that Rura was not a refugee and, therefore, was not entitled to any rights of allotment Moreover, the land allegedly abandoned by Rura son of Noor Muhammad as mortgagee has since been redeemed, and, therefore, the rights of mortgagee were also not applicable".. As regards the identity of Chand Khan, it was observed that "there are doubts about the identification of Chand Khan in view of his erratic performance in disap pearing for long periods and not establishing his identity in spite of a High Court order."

5. The aforesaid order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore/ Settlement Commissioner (Lands) has been challenged in this petition on the grounds : that the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) has gone beyond the scope of remand order by re‑opening the question of re-verification of the claim and the entitlement of Chand Khan to file claim in respect of the mortgagee rights abandoned in India by his father Rura as under the remand order only one question regarding identity of Chand Khan was to be determined; the finding that Rura son of Noor Muhammad died in 1949 in India without migrating to Pakistan and that the mortgage was .redeemed in 1957 are based on inadmissible evidence ; that on account of admissions made in Writ Petition No. 131/11/79 the entitlement of Chand Khan stood established and cannot be challenged by the respondent No. 2.

6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners but find them without any substance. The learned Settlement Commissioner on the basis of the evidence produced before him recorded the finding that Rura son of Noor Muhammad died in India in 1949 without migrating to Pakistan, and that the land which was mortgaged to him prior to Partition was also redeemed by the mortgagor in 1957. This finding was recorded on the basis of the evidence produced in the presence of the petitioners. As to the admissibility of the said evidence no objection at this time was raised, it is, therefore, not open for the petitioners now to raise the plea that the documents produced in evidence by the respondent No. 2 being in Hindi were not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that the documents were admissible in evidence as these were certified copies issued in accordance with law and were also duly certified by Pakistan Embassy in India and the Hindi documents were translated in Urdu and no objection whatsoever with respect to the said translation was made during the proceedings before the learned Settlement Commissioner. The objection as to inadmissibility of these documents is, therefore, without any merit. The second submission that the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands) has gone beyond the scope of the remand order is also without merit as the operative part of the remand order of the learned Judge quoted above clearly shows that the‑‑ remand was made to the Rehabilitation Commis sioner for verification of the claim of Chand Khan as well. In these circumstances the reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the observations that if on production of the evidence the Rehabilitation Commissioner is satisfied that Chand Khan petitioner whose passport has been produced before this Court is the same person who had claimed himself as a heir of Rura then half of the land of Rura should be con firmed in this favour is misplaced as his observation points out the second question which was required to be determined by the Rehabilitation Com missioner. Moreover, on the question of identity it will be seen that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. Even the Passport of Chand Khan which was produced apt the time of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition was not produced before the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lapds). It was stated by the learned counsel (and this statement has not been contradicted by the other side) that only a photo copy of the said Passport was produced. In any case the petitioners, having failed to establish the identity of Chand Khan, their predecessor-in‑interest, cease to be entitled to retain the allotted land. As regards the Admissions allegedly made by the respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 181/11/79, it was explained that the narration of facts given in the said writ petition was taken from the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2983/11/63 as at that time the evidence which was later produced before the learned Settlement Commissioner was not available and in these circumstances the said narration of facts cannot amount to any admission. The explanation is not without substance and in the circumstances the narration of facts so made in the writ petition cannot be treated as conclusive admissions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that in view of the definition of the 'displaced persons' as given in section 2 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, Rura son of Noor Muhammad even assuming that he died in 1949 can be treated as a displaced person and as such his rights in the land abandoned by him could be claimed by his heirs Section 2 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, defines the term "Displaced Person" as under :‑ "any person who on account of the setting up of the Dominions of Pakistan and India, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of or occupied by India has, on or after the first day of March, 1947, and before the 30th day of June, 1953, left, or been displaced from his place of residence in such area and who has subsequently become a citizen of Pakistan, or is residing therein." Reference was also invited to section 2 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1959 and to the definition of 'displaced person' in section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The short answer to this argument is that the Registration of Claim (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 is note relevant for claiming rights in respect of agricultural land abandoned in East Punjab (India) in view of the definition of the term 'claim' given in sub‑section (3) of section 2 of the said Act. This subsection reads as under :‑ ‑ " Claim means the assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in', property which has been treated as evacuee property or of which a displaced person has otherwise been deprived under any law for the time being in force in India or in any area occupied by India, except Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Manipur. but excludes the assertion of any such right or interest in any land as defined in sub‑clause (c) of clause (2) and situated within East Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner." The claims in respect of agricultural land abandoned in East Punjab were invited and verified under Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act. 1949 which defines the terms 'claim' in section 2 (a) as under :‑ "Claim" means a statement of loss or damage suffered by a refugee since the 1st day of March, 1947 in respect of his land within ,`:e territories now comprised in the Provinces of East Punjab, and Delhi. the East Punjab States and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner." The term 'refugee' has been defined under clause (d) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act, as follows :‑ 'Refugee' means a Baud‑holder in the territories now comprised‑in the Province of East Punjab and Delhi. the East Punjab States, and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner, who has since the 1st day of March, 1947, abandoned or been made to abandon his land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances, or the fear of such disturbances, or the partition of the country." The petitioners have not been able to prove in the instant case that Rura son of Noor Muhammad or was made to abandon the land in the said territories on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such distur bances or the partition of the country, and as such no claim could be filed in respect of the said land. No other point was urged.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit, and is, therefore, dismissed with costs. M. Y. M Petition dismissed.