1983 PLP 216 (CLC)

2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir and on migration he settled in village Rawn, Tehsil Narowal. District Sialkot. He was issued a ration‑card for three persons. Against this ration card and as "guzara allowance" he was allotted land measuring 77 Kanals and 2 Marlas in village Rawn and Dodewali, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. The respondent was conferred with the proprietary rights of the land allotted to him in these two villages on deposit of price. Respondent No. 2 levelled an allegation against the petitioner that he had obtained double allotment both in the aforesaid two villages and also in village Sahke, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot at Khata No.

63. On this complaint of respondent No. 2 proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and ultimately, the impugned order dated 20th November, 1978 was passed whereby the land in dispute allotted to the petitioner in villages Rawn and Dodewali was cancelled. Hence the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended Firstly, that the Border Area Committee which decided the matter was not lawfully constituted in that there could be no Committee with a representative of the Rehabilitation Commissioner as its member as with the repeal of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. there was no Rehabilitation Commissioner existing who could appoint validity his representative to act as a member of the Border Area Committee ; Secondly, that the conclusion arrived at vide the impugned order that Chiragh Din petitioner had obtained allotment of land in village Sahke was wholly based on conjuctures and without adverting to the material evidence on record which inter alia consisted of the state ment of the petitioner himself denying his having ever submitted any form seeking allotment in village Sahke, the statement of Ibrahim the nephew of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner never obtained allotment of land in the said village, and the statement of the tenant on the land who categorically denied having ever paid any batai to the petitioner of the produce of the land in village Sahke. thirdly, that the allotment of land in village Sahke having not been obtained by the petitioner, the land in dispute in village Rawn and Dodewali proprietary rights of which had been conferred upon the petitioner, could not be cancelled and instead it was the land in village Sahke which. should have been cancelled ; and lastly. that the observations in the impugned order about the chance of form regarding allotment of the land is village Sahke subsequently were only conjectural and based on the evidence of a person who was not put to the test of cross‑examination and thus reliance placed thereon was wholly inapt. 4: On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submit ted that in so far as the constitution of the Border Area Committee concerned, the amendment brought about by the Punjab Ordinance (III) of 1981 validates the constitution of the Border Area Committee and even if the Border Area Committee was not lawfully constituted, the presently constituted Border Area Committee can go into the matter as it has been lawfully constituted.

5. As regards the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these relates to findings of fact and are not appropriate subject for adjudication in writ jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that in view of para, 44‑A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 22 under which the Border Area Committee had passed the order, could not be invoked for the purposes of cancellation of the land in dispute as the said Scheme was made in applicable to the allotment of land to displaced per. sons from Jammu and Kashmir.

7. Having given consideration to the controversy involved, I find that matter calls for adjudication afresh by the Border Area Committee. The reason which has persuaded me to come to this conclusion is that the pre vious Border Area Committee was obviously not lawfully constituted as the Legislator himself had to amend the law in order to have a properly constituted Border Area Committee. The impugned order does not appear to be covered by para 18 added in Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 by virtue of the Punjab Ordinance III of 1981 as there is no specific approval of the General Headquarters placed. on record regarding the impugned order and the newly‑added para only saves such orders of the Border Area Committee which were passed prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Ordinance III of 1981 which had been approved by the General Headquarters.

8. Additionally, it may be observed that it has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Border Area Committee which passed the impugned order had not taken into consideration material evidence on record such as the statement of the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner's nephew, and the all important statement of the tenant on the land allegedly obtained by the petitioner in village Sahke.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, accepting this writ petition set a side the impugned order 20th November, 1978 and remand the case back to the newly‑construction Border Area Committee for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after notice to the parties. The parties may raise all legal and factual pleas before the Border Area Committee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.