1986 PLP 408 (MLD)

Evacuee Property‑‑Entitlement to purchase‑‑Where vendee of property was not privy to fraudulent allotment of such property and got same under Civil Court decree, such purchaser being in continuous possession of property eversince and property being less than subsistence holding, held, was entitled to purchase of such property. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1985. Manzur Ahmad petitioner herein, by means of this constitutional petition has called in question the validity of order, dated 16‑5‑1977 of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Gujranwala, whereby he cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of Muhammad Ramzan, respondent in village Aimnabad District Gujranwala.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that Muhammad Ramzan, being a displaced person, was allotted land measuring 94 Kanals and 11 Marlas on temporary basis in village Aimnabad District Gujranwala. His allotment of the land was confirmed on 25‑5‑1966 at Khata No.48 of Register RL‑II of the aforesaid village. Thereafter, on 31‑12‑1966, he sold the land in dispute through registered sale‑deed in favour of Bashir Ahmad and others of village Harchoke, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. the registered sale‑deed was given effect in the revenue record through Mutation No.1176 on 25‑2‑1967. Manzur Ahmad petitioner challenged the aforesaid sale by instituting a suit for possession through pre‑emption and succeeded in obtaining a decree of the Civil Court on 25‑9‑1969 in his favour. The decree was implemented in the revenue record and he continued in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since then.

3. Rahim Bakhsh and one Muhammad Din filed a Mukhbari application against Muhammad Ramzan, original allottee, pleading that he had procured the allotment of the land in dispute in excess of his claim. The Mukhbari application was allowed vide impugned order, dated 16‑5‑1977 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranawala, and the allotment of the land made in village Aimnabad in favour of Muhammad Ramzan was cancelled.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the disputed land. Muhammad Ramzan had obtained allotment of the land in dispute by appearing himself before the A . R . C . Thereafter, he disposed of the land through registered sale‑deed in favour of the vendees. The petitioner got the land in dispute under a Civil Court decree. He is in cultivating possession of the land in dispute eversince the decree was passed in his favour by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala, in the year 1969. Learned Counsel further contended that, in any case, the petitioner is entitled to purchase the land in dispute under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975).

5. No one has appeared to contest this petition on behalf of the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. The finding of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner that Muhammad Ramzan obtained allotment of the land in violation of the relevant provisions of law and in excess of his entitlement is subject to no exception particularly because he procured the urban land as against his rural claim and his claim had been satisfied in village Uddowali and could not obtain allotment of the land in‑ dispute as he had no balance claim.

7. In any case, the petitioner is not a privy to the fraudulent allotment obtained by Muhammad Ramzan Allottee as he got the land in dispute sunder a Civil Court decree. He claims to be in continuous possession of the land eversince he obtained the decree in the year 1969. The land in dispute is less than the subsistence holding. The petitioner claims that he has no other land in the village. If his assertion to that effect is Correct then he is entitled to purchase the land in dispute as envisaged under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced, Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Subject to the observation made above, this petition stands disposed of. As no one has appeared to contest this petition, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A. Order accordingly.