P L D 1966 (W (PLP)
MEHDI KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION AND
| Citation | P L D 1966 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. S. Faruqui, J |
| Parties | MEHDI KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION AND |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. S. Faruqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 (W (PLP) (MEHDI KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- E. V. Hussain for Petitioners.
- Naimuddin for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 26th August 1965.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme read with Board of Revenue Memoranda dated 22‑4‑57 and 23‑7‑57 ‑Allotment of land under Memorandum of 22‑4‑57 entirely on tem porary basis‑Rehabilitation Authorities later interfering with such allotment in accordance with Departmental interpretation of Memorandum‑‑Aggrieved party, held, not entitled to a declaration by High Court under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962).
Judgment & Decree
Naimuddin for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Date of hearing: 26th August 1965. This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution is directed against the final order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Nawabshah dated 18th October 1962.
2. The facts are very simple and may be stated. The petitioners who are related inter se migrated from Kapurthala State to the former Punjab. They were allotted land in Punjab out of their entitlement which was almost wholly satisfied except for a small portion which in terms of acreage came to 3.38 acre. This claim was transferred from the former Punjab to the former Sind and was received in District Nawabshah. These persons at that time were 5 in number and they were allotted a total area of 19.32 acres. At 4 acres per person it should have been 20 acres. Later on small slices from the allotment of each of these allottees were taken away to be given to another refugee and the petitioners challenged this before the A. R. C. and then before the D. R. C. and then filed the present petition.
3. The petitioners' case is based upon a memorandum of the Board of Revenue containing a decision of the Rehabilitation Commissioner which memorandum is dated 22nd April 1957. This lays down that in the Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions the minimum unit of allotment of evacuee agricultural land should be fixed at 4 acres. It is then provided as follows:‑ "While an allotment to the extent of a particular claimant's entitlement may be made under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, the remaining area up to the above minimum may for the present he permitted to be held on temporary basis: The land given in excess of the entitlement to any such claimant will, however, be paid for at such rates and in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be fixed eventually. Till full proprietary rights are conferred in the excess area, the allottee shall be considered as a tenant on payment of such rent (lease money) as may be fixed from time to time by the Rehabilitation Commissioner." The contention put forward before the Rehabilitation authorities was that regardless of what the petitioners had got in Punjab towards their entitlement they were further entitled to the allotment of four acres each as indeed it was given to them in the first instance. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner in a reasoned order turned down this contention and held that this applied to the claimants whose entitlement was less than 4 acres. This interpretation was based upon the clarification in another memorandum of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 23rd July 1957 which has been relied upon by the D. R. C. Therefore, it boils down to this, that the petitioners' claim which was based upon a departmental instruction was nullified by a subsequent departmental explanation and the D. R. C. was clearly bound by it. The memorandum of 22nd April 1957 would have applied in full force if the petitioners had not been allotted land in Punjab, and I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the D. R. C. that the memorandum could not in terms be attracted where the entitlement was partly satisfied in the Punjab and a very small fraction of it was transferred to Sind.
4. The next contention of the petitioners before the D. R. C. was that the remaining land should be kept with them to be settled upon their relations whose claim was still under scrutiny. The D. R. C. however did not accept that proposal.
5. There is another aspect of the matter. The allotment of four ‑acres as provided for in the memorandum of 22nd of April was to be entirely on a temporary basis. That being so, it did not vest the petitioners with such a right so as to entitle them to a declaration by this Court if that allotment was interfered with subsequently by the Rehabilitation authorities and more so when this interference was in accordance with the departmental interpretation of the earlier memorandum.
6. For the reasons given this petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. S.Q. Petition dismissed.