1985 PLP 553 (MLD)

Ch.Bashir Ahmad Alvi for Respondents Nos.l to

6. Legal Heirs of Respondent No.7. Nemo for the Respondents Nos.8 to

17. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st June, 1985. The petitioner being a displaced person from Alwar State was made temporary allotment on 9-8-1952. Jamabandis from the area were not received and therefore, according to the instructions the claim was verified on a certificate issued for 1006 P.I. Units on 25-8-1954. The petitioner was made allotment accordingly at Khata No.68 of the estate i.e. Chak No.18/GB, Tehsil Sheikhupura (now Nankana Sahib). Repeatedly instructions were issued from time to time by the Rehabilitation Commissioner that allotments made on the certificates should not be cancelled nor the areas allotted to others until receipt of Jamabandis from India and issuance of proper Fard-Haqiats. At one stage tire Central Record Office sent a note saying that the petitioner had left no land. The petitioner filed an objection petition on 27-2-1956. Without awaiting decision thereon, the A.R.C.(L) cancelled the land at Khata No.68 from the name of the petitioner on 8-3-1957. The petitioner, filed an appeal which was accepted vide order dated 1-8-1958. The Khata was- restored in favour of the petitioner on 12-12-1958. On 19-2-1959 the A . R. C . put down a note on the Khata No.68 of the petitioner that the petitioner's claim was sent for verification on 16-12-1958 but had not been received back after verification. The Khata is therefore, cancelled and the area allotted on other Khata numbers. Accordingly proposals for allotment of the land to the respondents Nos.l to 17 were made on 19-2-1959 and were confirmed on 2-7-1959. The claim of the petitioner was verified after receipt of the Jamabandis and he was issued Fard-e-Haqiat on 25-11-1959. It was reverified in terms of the P.I. Units for 812 on 25-10-1963. The petitioner filed an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay which was accepted by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 14-3-1964. Respondents Nos.l to 17 to whom the above-mentioned land cancelled from Khata No.68 of the petitioner was allotted, filed revision petitions which were dismissed on 10-1-1966. This order was challenged through Writ Petitions Nos.345, 346, 347-R/66 which were allowed for the reason that respondents were not heard when petitioner's appeal was accepted on 14-3-1964. The case was remanded. This is vide order dated 6-12-1973. On remand the learned Settlement Commissioner held that the verification of the claim of the petitioner has "given a fresh entitlement for which he could get allotment of land else-where". He upheld the cancellation of Khata No.68 from the name of the petitioner and its allotment to respondents Nos.l to 17 on the ground that that had been done when the petitioner's claim had been sent back to the Central Record Office and that had not been received back. Therefore, the Khata No.68 was rightly cancelled from the name of the petitioner and area allotted to respondents Nos.l to

17. This is vide order dated 9-6-1975. Hence this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various instructions of the Rehabilitation Commissioner (placed on the record) in which it was directed that the allotment of displaced persons from Alwar State is not to be disturbed pending the receipt of Jamabandis, verification of the claims and issuance of Fard-e-Haqiats. He has referred to a decision in Writ Petition No.626/R of 1960 by a very experienced and eminent Judge late Mr. Justice S.A. Mahmood, dated 29-1-1962 wherein the facts were identical and it was observed in paragraph 5 that "It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that at, the time when allotment was made in favour of the respondent No.2, the petitioners were not entitled to any land and hence the petitioners -have no case in writ jurisdiction. I cannot agree with the contention for the reason that the petitioners having filed objections were entitled to confirmation of 75$ of the area claimed by them. My attention has also been drawn to copy of endorsement No.4599-59/6012-R(G), dated the 11th of June, 1959, issued by the Secretary Rural to the Chief Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner forwarding a petition from refugees from Alwar State with the remarks that the land held by the claimants against certificates should not be cancelled to the extent of entitlement in case their claims have been pending for reverification with the attention to paragraph 61 and 62, Part 11, Chapter I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme." Exactly is the position in the case in hand. The claim of the petitioner stands verified. The reasoning of the learned Settlement Commissioner that "'this verification has given a fresh entitlement for which he (petitioner) could get allotment of land elsewhere", is misconceived. Verification of the claim is of the land abandoned in India in 1947. If the verification was not done or delayed by the Central Record office that was no fault of the claimant. Verification whenever done would revert back to the date of 1947 when land was abandoned. Moreover, it is no use unsettling a settled refugee when his claim stands verified' and it is unjust to say to him to have land somewhere else, leave the one on which he has been settled soon after the creation of the Country. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Settlement Commissioner is illegal and without lawful authority. However, it may be noted that the petitioner has allotment at Khata No.68, for 1006 Produce Index Units. His claim has been verified for 812 P.I. Units. Therefore, he is entitled to retain land to the extent of these many units. Rest of the allotment 1006-812=194 P.I. Units, he must surrender and the area, covered by these many units allotted to the respondents may be retained by those who have been allotted the areas. Besides these, the respondents will also be entitled to allotment of alternate available land because their case will be deemed to be 'pending' in terms of section 2 of Act XIV of 1975 on account of the litigation. Action shall be taken by the concerned authorities accordingly. With these observations this petition is allowed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. A . A . Petition allowed.