1994 PLP 1640 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑By this petition leave is sought to file appeal against judgment dated 21‑3‑1992 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No. 2187/1990 filed by the petitioner is dismissed after his suit for declaration and appeal were dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that the suit property consisting of Haveli was owned by one Hindu, who migrated after partition and the same was allotted to Lt.‑Col. (Rtd.) Rehmatullah, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 before us. Petitioner, as an informer, filed an application under sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act of 1958 for cancellation of allotment mentioned above, on the ground that the same was obtained against agricultural units by way of fraud. Application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 13‑12‑1976. Petitioner brought suit in the year 1979 for declaration and consequential relief in respect of allotment which was made in the year 1951. The suit was resisted and keeping in view the pleadings of the parties as many as 6 issues were framed in the light of which evidence was recorded and finally the suit was dismissed, followed by appeal and revision which were also dismissed, hence this petition.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is non‑suited on the ground that he has no locus standi and this had been done by the trial Court without recording finding on issue No. 1 which is material issue in the case. In this context perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that following issues were framed.:‑‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi? O.P.D. (2) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction? O.P.D. (3) Whether the suit is bad in the present form? O.P.D. (4) Whether the transfer of disputed Haveli in favour of defendant No. 1 is without lawful authority, bogus, mala fide and, the result of fraud? O.P.D. (5) If issue No. 4 is held in affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to the transfer of disputed house? O.P.D. (6) Relief.

4. Trial Court has dealt with issue No. 1 in sufficient detail covering subjects of cause of action and locus standi with reference to the evidence and documents produced by the parties. Petitioner admitted in his cross -examination that disputed Haveli was situate outside the limits of Municipal Committee, Sialkot and the same should be allotted to him as an informer. Exh. D‑1 on the record showed that disputed property was allotted to defendant No. 1 in the suit in 1951 and 1959. It was held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the disputed house is in a rural area and appears to be less than Rs.10,000 in value as is apparent from Exh. D‑2, hence it was not necessary that defendant No. 1 should submit any form for its allotment. In the year 1971 one Syed Irshad Hussain moved an application for cancellation of the disputed property from the name of defendant No. 1 but the same was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on 19‑9‑1972 observing that the disputed house is rural property, less than Rs.10,000 in value, hence it was rightly allotted to defendant No. 1, who was its occupant as contemplated under Scheme No. VII. Both from the date of allotment in 1551 and 1959 and from date of dismissal of application of petitioner, suit was filed after the period of limitation. Trial Court has held that petitioner has no locus standi for the reason that his application was dismissed by Settlement Authorities and that finding attained finality and could not be challenged in Civil Court and secondly that petitioner is not a claimant and has no vested right in the disputed property after dismissal of his application by the Settlement Authorities.

5. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that petitioner alleged fraud on the ground that price of the property in dispute was valued at Rs.50,000 before partition and in support of that assertion produced oral evidence of three, witnesses including himself. As against that stand was taken by defendant No. 1 in the suit that he was refugee from Jammu & Kashmir State and since creation of Pakistan was in possession of disputed Haveli which was previously owned by Amardas, Advocate, and after its allotment he submitted K.C.H. Form which was not accepted by the department because it was held by the department that it was rural immovable property valued less than Rs.10,

000. Claim of defendant was supported by documents Exh. D‑I which is permit of allotment and Exh. D‑2 which is order of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sialkot. documentary evidence has more weight than oral evidence.

6. Findings against the petitioner are concurrent given by three forums and learned counsel appearing on his behalf has not been able to point out any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court with which no interference is warranted and in the result we refuse leave and dismiss this petition, which has no merits. A.A./M‑1940/S Leave refused.