P L D 1989 Lahore 473 (PLP)

This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 25‑1‑1989 to consider the plea that the Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector, Toba Tek Singh was abusing his jurisdiction by trying to achieve indirectly what was not permitted under the law to be done directly.

2. It was complained that an allotment of evacuee land made way back in the year 1953 in satisfaction of claim for agricultural land abandoned in India, was long after the repeal of the evacuee laws sought to be cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner as District Collector by adopting the device of review of the mutations witnessing such an allotment. It is common ground between the parties that the allotment made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws remained intact during the period the evacuee laws remained in force and even after the repeal uptodate no competent Rehabilitation /Settlement Authority has interfered with or cancelled such allotment. There can be no bona fide cavil with the legal proposition that allotment having been made in favour of a claimant from East Punjab by a competent authority under Settlement and Rehabilitation laws, no dubious device in law is, permissible to achieve indirectly what is not permitted to be done directly under the law. The District Collector being a creation of the Land Revenue Act is possessed of no power or jurisdiction to go behind the allotment and settlement of evacuee land which had attained finality under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, since repealed in the year 1974. There is no room or scope for doubts, in this respect on a reference to Rules 7 and 7‑A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, as they existed at the relevant time. Rule 7 ordained permanent settlement of land on the allottees with effect from 24th December, 1961 or the date of final confirmation which ever was later, subject of course, to certain situations visualised by the proviso that are not relevant nor in issue. Thereafter, Rule 7‑A, inter alia, laid down that after the land has been finally allotted and settled as prescribed by the preceding Rules the Revenue authority of the area concerned shall, for the purpose of making entries in respect of rights and interests of the allottees in the record of rights or register Haq Daran Zameen or in village form No. VII, as the case may be, treat the entries in R .L. II at par with those in a register of mutations and it shall not be necessary to sanction any mutation for the purpose. It cannot be overlooked that until the allotment in question made by a Settlement and Rehabilitation Authority on the prescribed R.L.II register under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws exists and subsists, the Deputy Commissioner, the District Collector or any other Revenue authority is wholly incompetent to defeat such allotment in collateral proceedings in exercise of the powers under the Land Revenue Act. An allotment through appropriate proceedings could have been cancelled before the repeal of the evacuee laws by the competent functionaries under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, either in appeal or revision or under section 10 or 11 of the said Act, or thereafter proceedings lawfully pending since before the repeal of such laws could be finally disposed of by a Notified Officer appointed under Act XIV of 1975. The Deputy Commissioner or the District Collector as such do not fit in the scheme of the above‑mentioned two laws and are wholly incompetent to go behind an allotment made by a competent Settlement authority or records of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. A Notified officer under Act XIV of 1975, enjoys limited jurisdiction circumscribed by preconditions and conditions and qualifications of its exercise have been clearly spelt out. The paramount pre‑condition is that the proceedings must have been competently instituted and lawfully pending before a competent officer under Displaced Persons Acts, or other Evacuee Laws since before 30th June, 1974 which were to stand transferred to appropriate Notified Officer for its final disposal. Where no such proceedings were pending there arose no question of proceedings being transferred to a Notified Officer for final disposal or his assuming jurisdiction in the matter on any plea whatsoever. The above conclusions flow from a careful reading of the provisions and scheme of Act XIV of 1975 which also repealed, amongst other laws, the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Reference in this behalf may be made to some of the reported cases decided by the superior Courts in this country:‑ (i) Muhammad Yunus and others v. Muhammad Yunus Khan etc. 1981 SCMR 899. (ii) Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others 1984 SCMR 228. (iii) Farman Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar P L D 1984 Kar. 62.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 at this stage submits that what he is really seeking is not cancellation of the allotment of the land made under Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws but is asking for his rights which have been usurped through impersonation. It is submitted that the real claimant is Barkat Ali son of Umra son of Malang caste Gujjar who had abandoned land in Pandori Atwalan, tehsil and district Hoshiarpur and it is his claim which has been settled in Chak No.362/GB, Tehsil Gojra District Toba Tek Singh. It is further being stated that this land had been grabbed through impersonation by Barkat son of Nihal son of Rura who hailed from the same village in East Punjab and also belongs to the same caste.

4. I see no justification for keeping these proceedings pending because it is conceded by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that he was not asking for the cancellation of the allotment or settlement of evacuee land but was claiming his right in such allotted and settled land against alleged impersonators. Therefore, the very premises on the basis of which the Court was persuaded to examine the matter in depth is found to lack factual basis. However, I would not like to stand in the way of reaching the truth or determination of the question of the rights of two sets of contenders and the persons to whom the property really belongs. The sole question to be decided would be whether the land was allotted against the claim of Barkat son of Umra son of Malang or Barkat son of Nihal son of Rura. The Jamabandis and pedigree table of the claimants received from India may be of considerable importance in resolving the controversy as also the true identity of the claimant and the persons claiming through or under him. The proceedings which are going on before the District Collector are to remain confined to revenue matters only and designed to reach the truth to find out as to the real owner of the allotted and settled land within the framework of law but this exercise cannot be streteched so as to constitute any infraction of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act or the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.

5. The net result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. A . A . /F‑129/L Appeal dismissed.