1983 PLP 689 (CLC)

"The property at Havelian consisting of 34 shops, 31 Balakhanas and 5 houses; mostly in occupation of refugees, will facilitate the settlement of displaced persons, if declared fully evacuee t. e. by adjusting the share of Sh. Salahuddin Iqbal in this property against his evacuee brother's share in Abbotabad and Nathia Gali property.". The learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner, however, returned the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner pointing oat that "the property at Havelian and Nathia Gali is not within the purview of the Compensation Aft, 1958 at present". He directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide the case himself when the provisions of the Compensation Act ware extended to those areas. As the above order dealt with the built‑up property, therefore, in November,. 1965, the petitioner also made an application to the Addl. Rehabilitation Commissioner Hazara, that he may, in full and final settlement of his share in the joint agricultural laqd, be allowed to retain as owner of 131.8 Kanals of land situated in Havelian and Malach‑Nathiagali. This application after examination of the entire case wag accepted and necessary orders in the form of communication were sent to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner for implementation. It appears that the said orders were not executed and according to the petitioner, his efforts in this behalf did not materialize. He made an application to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan on 7‑9‑1967 praying therein as under :‑ "(i) that the property consisting of houses and shops may be divided according to the mode suggested by Major Sarwar Hazaca Khan, Deputy Settlement Commissioner Hazara so that his share is finally separated and (ii) that he may" be allowed, in full and final settlement of his share in agriculture land, to retain 131.8 Kanals of land situated in Havelian and Malach." The above application was pending when the Province of West Pakistan was dissolved, therefore, the application was sent to the office of Custodian at Peshawar. This application was heard by the Addl. Custodian, Peshawar. As the respondents had raised objection against this application before the learned Custodian at Lahore, the learned Addl. Custodian Peshawar by his order dated 27‑12‑1975 Annexure 'E' remanded the case to the Deputy Custodian, Hazara, for decision in the light of the following seven points formulated by him in his order. "(1) To check the validity of the order of the Acting Custodian. Evacuee Property, N.‑W. F. P. dated 13‑2‑1950 initiating the instant case. (2) The actual properties of the joint family situated in Hazara District. (3) Share of the petitioner in the joint property. (4) The property already transferred to the petitioner by partition uptil now (Urban and Rural Properties) (5) The land and Urban properties belonging to the joint family but transferred to refugees against their verified claims as wall as to the locals in accordance with relevant Settlement Scheme. (6) Compensation to the petitioner of the property belonging to him but transferred to the claimants and locals who have got P. T. Ds. and L. R. 11. (I) Recovery of the income of the joint family property from the petitioner who derived it." The Deputy Custodian dealt with the application and rejected it holding that the petitioner was an evacuee and he would not be entitled to claim any property left by him in Pakistan when he went over to India in 1947, vide his order dated 14‑12‑1976 (Annexure 'G'). It is this order by which the petitioner is aggrieved and has impugned it before this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction with a prayer that the said order be declared illegal, void, without lawful authority and no legal effect and it be directed that the share of the petitioner be partitioned in terms of the order of Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950. We now turn to deal with the Writ Petition No. 75 of 1980 filed by Dolu. It may be mentioned that after the writ petition of Sheikh Salahuddin Iqbal was admitted to regular hearing on 8‑2‑1977, he (Dolu) applied for impleadment as respondent. His application was granted by order dated 15‑11‑1977. Notwithstanding this, he (Dolu) filed a separate writ petition (i.e. W. P. No. 75/1980). His case is that he is a claimant‑refugee from India and although considerable units are pending in his name but he has not yet been allotted any agricultural land. He applied under sections 10 and 14 of the Displaced Persons (Lands Settlement) Act, 1958, before the Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land Hazara) for the allotment of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1156 and 1157 measuring 75 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated in Havelian, Tehsil and District Abbottabad. This land, it may be pointed, is a part of the property which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 47 of 1977. ‑The above application was however, rejected on 14‑7‑1976 on the ground that his case does not come within the purview of sections 10 and 14 ibid. Meanwhile, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Abbottabad, by his order dated 14‑12‑‑1976 held that the petitioner Saluhuddin lqbal in Writ Petition No. 47 of 1977 is an evacuee and not entitled to any land owned by him in Pakistan. It appeas from para. 6 of the Writ Petition (No. 75 of 1980) that the petitioners filed allotment applications for the allotment of the land in question before respondent No.

1. He alleges that although Salabuddin Iqbal was held evacuee and was not held entitled to the land left by him in Pakistan and for. that matter he was eligible for the allotment of the land in question, yet his efforts in this behalf did not fructify. His grievance is that respondent No. 1 (Addl. Settlement Commissioner Land Hazara) was not behaving well with him, therefore, he approached the Settlement Commissioner with power of Add), Custodian Hazara Division for the transfer of his allotment applications. The Settlement Commissioner, Hazara Division, by his order dated 17‑11‑1976 transferred the applications from respondent No. l to respondent No. 3 (Deputy Settlement Commissioner Abbottabad). However, in disregard of this transfer order, respondent No, 1 dismissed his allotment applications by order dated 29‑7‑1980. It is in this background that the petitioner (Dolu) has filed the present Writ Petition bearing No. 75 of 1980 alleging that his claim for the allotment of the land mentioned in his writ petition for which he had applied before the Authorities was not processed according to law. It is, therefore, prayed that he may be held to be entitled to the allotment of the land in question against his pending units, that the order of respondent No. 1 (Addl. Settlement Commissioner Land Hazara) he declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently a mandatory injunction /order be issued restraining respondent No. 1 from allotting the, said land to any body else. We have heard the learned counsel for the patties in both the writ petitions and perused the various materials brought on the record. I take up first for disposal Writ Petition No. 47 of 1977 of Sh. Salahuddin Iqba

1. I consider that the order of the learned Addl. Custodian Peshawar dated 27‑12‑1975 Annexure 'E' and the subsequent order of the learned Deputy Custodian dated 14‑12‑1976 Annexure 'B' were wholly unlawful and of no legal effect. The learned Acting Custodian had resolved the matter as far back as 13‑2‑1950 by which he held that the petitioner is entitled to his share in the joint property. No step by any body was taken to question the propriety of this order, therefore, it became final. I, therefore, hold that any order passed subsequently against‑ the spirit of the order of the Acting Custodian, dated 13‑2‑1950 will be coram non judice and will have no legal validity whatever. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that at the time of the Partition of the Sub‑Continent, the petitioner Sheikh Salabuddin Iqbal left for India, therefore, legally be became an evacuee and would not be entitled to any property left by him in Pakistan even if he had come back after migration to India. In support of this contention, he relied upon an authority reported in the case of Narainds and 2 others v. Pakistan, Ministry of Rehabilitation and 2 others (1). This authority was also relied upon by the learned Addl. Deputy Custodian, Abbottabad, vide his order dated 14‑12‑1976 (Annexure 'D' to Writ Petition No. 75 of 1980 filed by Dolu). I am clearly of the view that this authority is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. I have already observed that the order of the Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950 was not challenged before any law forum, therefore, his order became final and the authorities were left with no power to frustrate its finality. The learned counsel for the respondents conceded that this order was never agitated before any competent authority in appeal or revision or review or in other legal proceedings, therefore, the Deputy Custodian had acted without jurisdiction and his order to annul the order of the Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950 would be coram non judice and would carry no legal sanctity. I have already discussed the case in this judgment, while dealing with the factual position given in Writ Petition No. 47 of 1977 of Sh. Salahuddin Iqbal. The clear position is that in compliance with the order dated 13‑2‑1950 of the Acting Custodian, the case was to come up before one authority or the other for the determination of the share due to Sh. Salahuddin lqbal petitioner and not for the resolution of any other point. In this behalf, as already noted, the petitioner moved the Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, through application, dated 7‑9‑1967, that his share in the built‑up area may be finally separated according to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hazara, and that in full and final settlement of his share in (1) 1975 S C M R 123 agricultural land, he may be allowed to retain 131.8 Kanals of land situated in Havelian and Malacb. This application was pending when the Province of West Pakistan was dissolved and thereafter the matter came up before the Addl. Custodian Peshawar before whom on the objection of the respondents the Addi. Custodian referred the matter to the Deputy Custodian, Hazara, inter alia, on the question whether the order of the Acting Custodian, Evacuee Property, N: W. F. P. dated 13‑2‑1950, holding the petitioner entitled by his share in the joint property was valid, vide his order dated 27‑12‑1975. The Deputy Custodian held that the petitioner Sh. Salahuddin lqbal on migration to India became evacuee and was not entitled to any property left by him in Pakistan in view of the authority reported in 1975 S C M R I have already observed that the order of the Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950 was never challenged before any forum of law and as this position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, there was no justification for the Add[. Custodian Peshawar to ask the Deputy Custodian, Hazara, to check the validity of the order of learned Acting Custodian, Evacuee Property N.‑W. F. P. dated 13‑2‑1950. The learned counsel ‑for the respondents conceded that the order of the learned Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950 was in the field for implementation before various authorities and its legality was never challenged by the Department before any competent forum. It is also conceded that the petitioner Sh. Salahuddin Iqbal had approached the Custodian Department through an application for the implementation of the order of the Acting Custodian dated 13‑2‑1950. In this state of record there would be an occasion for the Addl. Custodian Peshawar as well as Deputy Custodian Hazara to intervenes with order of the acting Custodian which was passed in favour of the petitioner as far back as 13‑2‑1950. Even otherwise, the learned Acting Custodian, by his order, dated 13‑2‑1950 had not held that the petitioner had migrated to India as Hindu and had returned to Pakistan as Hindu. What he has observed in this behalf is that. if he has genuinely embraced Islam and honestly wishes to settle down as its true and loyal citizen, I do .nr: see any reason why should we be so hard on him. 1, therefore, order that Salabuddinshould be given possession of his share in the property and the rest, if there is no serious objection, should be given to him, on lease." These observations will show that the petitioner was not doubted that he has embraced Islam. I consider that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had already embraced Islam before he visited India at the time of Partition to see his another. After migration, he came back to Pakistan and married a Muslim woman. In the cited authority, the appellant bad not claimed that they bad embraced Islam and as they had migrated to India as Hindu and had returned as Hindu, they were held evacuees. In the present case, this is not the position. The petitioner Sh. Salabuddin Iqbal claimed having already embraced Islam ands it was not brought on record that by faith he was Hindu and in order to restore his property to himself, he was professing himself to have embraced Islam. I, therefore, feel that he cannot be declared a Hindu. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that he had gone to India at the time of Partition as Muslim and bad returned to Pakistan as Muslim. Now we will have to trace the legal definition of the word "evacuee". I consider that this word is only meant for a Hindu who at the time India to Pakistan Partition migrated to India and after his return from Hindu, he will not be entitled to claim that he is not an evacuee and is a Hindu citizen of Pakistan. If a Hindu had migrated to India at the time of Partition and thereafter he chose to return to Pakistan, he can be held an evacuee within the definition of section 2‑A of the Administration o Evacuee Property Ordinance. In the present case, Sh. Salahuddin Iqbal petitioner has never claimed that he had migrated to India as Hindu. His claim is that he had gone to India as Muslim and bad come back to Pakistani as Muslim. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of this proposition and I hold that he was not an evacuee, the moreso as this question was never agitated by the Department before any legal forum after the Acting Custodian passed his order dated 13‑2‑1959, which has otherwise attained finality in the circumstance of the case. Having held that the order of the Addl. Custodian Peshawar dated 27‑12‑1975 and the subsequent order of the Deputy Custodian dated 14‑12‑1976 have no legal basis and are unlawful and of legal effect whatever and that the order of Acting Custodian, dated 13‑2‑1950, is enforceable a law, the matter presents no other legal difficulty to be resolved. It is clear that the order of the Acting Custodian. dated 13‑2‑1950 remains, as it is, and despite various efforts by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, the share due to him in the property in question has not yet been set apart. It is a matter of record that some built‑up property is in possession of the petitioner Sh. Salahuddin Iqbal and according to him, his share in the agricultural property has not been given to him. Equity, there fore, demands that the built up area in possession of the petitioner, if amongst the built up property, it can fall to his share, the same should be allowed to be retained by him as owner. As regards his share in the agricultural property, the petitioner is also entitled to his share in the same and it is for the authorities to determine as to what would be his share in the agricultural land so that the same should be given to him. This, however, is not the end of the matter. The petitioner Sh. Salahuddin lqbal has claimed that apart from his share, he is also entitled to hold on lease the rest of the property according to the order of the learned Acting Custodian, dated 13‑2‑1950. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to law or proposition of law to show that legally the petitioner wilt have the monopoly of lease over the rest of the property, Even in his order the learned Acting Custodian has made it clear that if there is no serious objection, the remaining property should be given to him on lease. If in the circumstances, this course would not be possible to be followed, the authorities are not bound to lease out to the petitioner the rest of the property. This brings me to the disposal of Writ Petition No. 75 of 1980, filed by Dolu. His submission is that he is a non‑claimant refugee and he is to be given agricultural land against his pending units and that he has filer applications before the authorities in this behalf for the allotment of agricultural land comprised in Khasras Nos. 1149, 1150 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1156 and 1157 measuring 75 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated in Hevelian, Tehsil and District Abbottabad. We have noticed that this land is a part of the agricultural property which is the subject‑matter of Writ Petition No. 4" of 1977 filed by Sh. Salahuddin 1qbal petitioner. I have already held him entitled to his share in the said agricultural property. In view of this, the petitioner Dolu cannot claim an land in the said property unless Sh. Salahuddir lqbal petitioner is given his due share therein. It may, however be observed that after determining the share of Sh. SaJahuddin Iqbal, if the rest of the land in the said agricultural property is found to have been allotted to other claimant‑refugees and petitioner Dolu cannot be accommo dated in satisfaction of his claim in that land, he may move the authorities for the allotment of other available land. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Writ Petition bearing No. 47 of 1977, filed by Sh. Salahuddin lqbal is allowed in terms set out in this judgment and as regards the Writ Petition bearing No. 75 of 1980 of Dolu petitioner, the same is dismissed with the observation made above. Under the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. M. A. K. Order accordingly.