1996 PLP 264 (CLC)

3.Regarding land situated in Square No.51 Killa Nos. 2, 3, 23, 24, 25/14, 25/2, 20, 21 and 22 total admeasuring 89 Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Chak No.223/RB, equivalent to 820 P.I. Units, the respondents had taken the objection of the land having been exchanged and acquiring the status of State Land and also that the petitioner was not in possession and as such, according to the respondents, his case was not c2vered under notification dated 12‑6‑1988. It was further submitted that R.SA. bearing No.389/74 titled Ghulam Muhammad etc. v. Province of Punjab was pending in the High Court and stay order was issued by this Court in the said R.SA. In reply to objections raised with regard to the land situated in Chak No.223/RB, learned counsel for the petitioner produced photo copy of the orders in R.SA. No.389/74 showing that the same was dismissed, in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants, for non‑prosecution as according to the' learned counsel for the appellants in the said R.SA. brief was taken away from him and he had no further instructions. Regarding possession, the petitioners produced Babar Mahmood son of Ali Muhammad, Tariq Mahmood son of Ali. Muhammad and Humayun Sohrab son of Ali Muhammad, all residents of Chak No.223/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad, whose father's name was originally entered as tenant of the land and after the death of Ali Muhammad, their father, they were in actual physical possession of the said land. They filed their affidavits and also made statements on oath in this Court on 3‑5‑1995 wherein they stated that they were not in possession of the land situated in Square No.51 of Chak No.223/RB, in their own rights but rather were cultivating the same, like his father, as tenants under Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner. They disclaimed any independent right or title in the said land and in view of the above the possession of the petitioner over the said land was proved.

4. The allotments of evacuee lands were undertaken in Punjab after receipt of verified claims under instructions issued from time to time by the Financial Commissioner on behalf of the Government. of the Punjab who was Ex‑Officio Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The object of statutes detailed below was to get the claims registered regarding agricultural land and verification thereof; (i) The West Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949 (W.P. Act V of 1949); (ii) The Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) (Capital of the Federation) Ordinance, 1949, (XII of 1949); (iii) The North‑West Frontier Province Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949, (N: W.F.P. Act X of 1949); (iv) The Bahawalpur State Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act . No.14 of 1949; (v) The Sindh Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1950 (Sindh Act II of 1950); (vi) The Khairpur State Refugees (Registration of Land Claims Ordinance No.4 of 1952); (vii) The Refugees (Registration of Land Claims (Balochistan) Regulation, 1950 (111 of 1950); and (viii) The Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956); On the basis of verified claims registered under the above statutes was allotted agricultural land to displaced persons under the Rehabilitation Scheme in lieu of claims registered and verified or deemed to have been reviewed or verified under the above enactments.

5. The claims registered for agricultural land abandoned by Muslim refugees in India when verified by the Central Record Room became the property of the claimant and all allotments made of agricultural land, were in lieu of the verified claims and as such the verified claim was a "property" and the owner thereof had a right to be re‑settled in Pakistan according to the declared policy of the Government. Faisalabad Tehsil was declared as congested and a ceiling to allotment was fixed and the maximum ceiling was 2000 P.I.Us. In the present case the petitioner had only a total of 1788 P.I.Us., much less of the ceiling and thus the outstanding claim equivalent to the 916 P.U.Is., as per entries of Register RL‑II, were the proceedings pending for a adjustment. Reliance is placed on Nawab Din v. Member Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1979 SC 84 5) and Inayat Bibi v. A.S.C. and Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1978 L chore 252) and also on judgment in W.P. No. 722‑R‑72 (Mst. Ghulam Fatima v_ Federation of Pakistan) and W.P. No. 716‑R‑1981. The respondents have admitted the allotment in the name of the petitioner so far as the land situated in Chak No.220/RB Tehsil Faisalabad is concerned. The petitioner has proved his possession over the land situated in Square No.51 of Chak No.223/RB.

6. The learned A: A.G. while admitting the allotment in the name of the petitioner, has submitted that he had no locus standi to get the direction issued for getting his name incorporated in the column of ownership in the Jamabandi, as, according to him, with the notification of 3‑1‑1958 all his rights in the property stood extinguished. I am afraid, a right had vested in the petitioner under the Settlement Scheme duly issued by the Government of Punjab and the authorised Rehabilitation Commissioner had confirmed the land in the name of the petitioner on register maintained for the said purpose. This allotment order had created a right, unimpeachable except under the law and if the law of the land is to be applied, no right could be taken away from a citizen except in accordance with law. The petitioner was not a party to the exchange transaction. He was never heard. He was not even issued a notice for cancellation of the land so allotted to him against verified claim. Any action purported to have been taken on the assumption that the petitioner's allotment stood cancelled on issuance of notification of alleged exchange was repugnant to the principles of natural justice and thus illegal and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner.

7. Non‑implementation of confirmation of land in the name of the petitioner in the relevant column of subsequent Jamabandi would not amount to denuding the petitioner of his valuable right in the property in the absence of a formal cancellation order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, it is not the case of the respondent that confirmation was duly cancelled. It was also not the case of the respondents that the land was acquired or that notice was issued to the petitioner before the name of Provincial Government was incorporated in the column of ownership. Thus, all these proceedings are without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The petitioner has a right to be incorporated as owner in the Jamabandi of the land allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities in Register RL‑II and also to get the proprietary rights of the land situated in Square No.5 of Chak No.223/RB, Tehsil Faisalabad of which he was in possession through his tenants as against his outstanding P.I.Us. through adjustment. In view of the above, writ petition is accepted. Direction to I respondents Nos.2 and 3 is issued to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the column of ownership of Jamabandi of Chak No.220/RB, Tehsil Faisalabad corresponding to the land allotted to him and so admitted by the respondents Nos.2 and

3. Directions are further issued to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner through adjustment, of his outstanding P.I.Us. in land admeasuring 89 Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Square No.51 Killa Nos.2, 3, 23, 24, 25/1, 4, 25/2, 20, 21 and 22 of Chak No.223/RB, Tehsil Faisalabad, which was rural agricultural evacuee property in the year 1947 and was available for allotment. The directions be complied with at the earliest as it was a case of hardship; the petitioner had been denied his rights in the property for almost 40 years. No order as to costs. AA./M‑2556/L Petition accepted.