2000 PLP 1651 (CLC)

The petitioners were occupying the land measuring 271 Kanals, 6 Marlas in Village Basti Nau, Tehsil and District Multan as occupancy of tenants. The land was owned by evacuee landlords. It so happened that a portion of the said land measuring 28 Kanals was allotted to Mst. Karam Nishan etc. at RL‑11 126 and Muhaminad. Ibrahim etc. at RL‑11

127. Against the said allotments Nazim Ali, the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed appeals. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) allowed the appeal filed against Mst. Karam Nishan vide an order, dated 4‑12‑1963 and remanded the matter while appeal against Muhammad Ibrahim was accepted on 15‑7‑1963 directing that the land be allotted to the said Nazim Ali. However, later on the matter came up before a D.S.C. (Land), Multan for implementing the said order of A.S.C.(L) when he found that the land stood excluded from allotment under para.4(A)(viii) and para.31 (ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. He: consequently held that the land could not be allotted to anybody. However, he added a note that whenever Government decided to allot such land the respondents shall be given preference. Nothing further was done in the matter. Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was .upended vide an amended Act XXXVI of 1974 whereby section 14 (B) was added, the effect whereof was that the provisions of section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 were made applicable to the Muslim occupancy tenants under the evacuee landlords. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were occupying the land subject to payment of one‑third share of the produce to the landlords. Consequently, they were declared to be owner of two‑third share in the said land. The remaining one third was continued to be occupied by the petitioners. This position continued till such time that the Displaced Persons and Evacuee Property (Repeal) Act, 1975 was enforced. The case of the petitioners is that under the; provisions of th: said Act, they being in possession of the land and otherwise qualifying the terms thereof were entitled to be offered the remaining one third land for sale. Accordingly, they deposited a sum of Rs.58,000 as price] of the said remaining 1/3rd land at the prescribed rate.

2. On 24‑8‑1977 the private respondents filed an application for implementation of the orders of the A.S.C (Land), dated 15‑7‑1963 and 4‑12‑1963. This application was rejected by A.D.C.(G)/A.S.C.(L), Multan vide his order dated 19‑11‑1978 holding that no fresh allotment could be made after the repeal of the said Laws. Order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Settlement Commissioner (Land). Multan who allowed the same on 8‑12‑1979 and remanded the case back to A.S.C. (Land), Multan for fresh decision. The said A.S.C. (Land), Multan after remand passed an order dated 19‑12‑1981 directing implementation of the said order dated 15‑7‑1963 and 4‑12‑1963 This order dated 19‑12‑1981 was challenged by the petitioners by fling the present suit. Their contention being that the entire land being in their occupation as occupancy tenants E stood excluded from allotment; that after declaration of their ownership to the extent of 2/3rd, they remained in possession of the remaining 1 /3rd and under the new dispensation the land was to be sold to them on payment of the prescribed price. The private respondents contested the suit. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide a judgment and decree dated 19‑1‑1988. An appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan on 27‑4‑1995.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the land stood excluded from allotment under the provisions of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, the order of its allotment was void ab initio and in fact was rendered wholly ineffective by the subsequent order of the D.S.C. (Land) who refused to implement the sane on the said precise ground. Further, contends thaf law as contained in the Displaced Persons and Evacuee Properties (Repeal) Act, 1975 had to take precedence over the note of the said D.S.C. (Land). Learned counsel for the private respondents has tried to support the impugned judgments and decrees.

4. I have gone through the records appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The factual position emerging is the same as narrated by me above. The primary question to be determined in this case is as to whether the Notified Officer under the said Act of 1975 could have entertained the application of the private respondents for allotment of the land or to use the words of learned counsel for the private respondents to implement the earlier allotment order. To my mind the answer to the said question is in the negative. It is but apparent on the face of the record that the remaining 1/3rd of the suit land was never allotted to any one. The allotment orders made in the year, 1963 in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the private respondents were void ab initio for the simple reason that the land stood excluded from allotment under the above‑referred provisions of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. For all purposes the said land stood vested in the Provincial Government upon promulgation of the said Act of 1975 and had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the same. By no stretch of imagination could it be held that any matter or case was pending regarding the allotment of the suit land at the time of promulgation of the said Act which could have been decided or dealt with by the Notified Officer. The land having vested in the Provincial Government had to be disposed of in the manner prescribed by said law which lays down that in the first instance it is the right of the occupants of the land to purchase the same on payment of price at the prescribed rate. It stands established on record that said price was in fact deposited by the petitioners. I, therefore, find that the learned Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in them by allowing the Impugned order dated 19‑12‑1981 of A.D.C. (G)/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan to hold the filed when it was utterly without jurisdiction. This Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. The Judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are set C aside and the suit of the petitioners is decreed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑136/L Revision allowed.