1992 PLP 1611 (CLC)

Total: 4989 5888 899

‑‑ ________________________________________________________________________ It is obvious that neither the dates of allotments have been mentioned in this statement nor allotment in village Kamoke was taken into consideration.

11. From a bare perusal of the remand order dated 18‑11‑1985 it is evident that the following two points were to be determined:‑ (i) to see if the allotments were made in those‑villages in Gujranwala District) in the name of Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, and if they were so found then the petitioners will have no entitlement to retain the land in question; (ii) If no allotment was made in those villages and the claim of the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest (Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan) was not fully satisfied in Dera Ghazi Khan, then the allotment made in the name of Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan in village Kamoke shall stand.

12. None of the learned counsel of the parties has adverted to the second point, i.e. whether the 5(M P.I. Units said to have been transferred from Dera Ghazi Khan District were validly transferred to Gujranwala. It is therefore necessary to look into this neglected or deliberately ignored aspect.

13. The concerned Deputy Commissioners were required to furnish reports regarding the allotments made in favour of aforesaid Mueen‑ud‑Din and further transfers, if any, to other districts. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, vide his letter No.192/SC'/DSC'/(L), dated 3‑7‑1991, reported as under:‑ "In view of your directions contained in the letter under reference, the record pertaining to allotment of land in favour of Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan son of Yadcen‑ud‑Din Khan, has been thrashed out and found that 16018 Units have been settled in Sahiwal District, while remaining Units have been transferred to other districts. The details of settled Units and transferred Units, separately, are given hereunder:‑ ________________________________________________________________________ Name of Chak No./ Units Date of District Mauia. settled confirmation. ________________________________________________________________________ Sahiwal 97/9L 6711 10‑10‑1951 17/14L. 9‑10‑1951 " 149/9L 2000 10‑1‑1961 " 61/4R 2304 4‑9‑1905 Okara 12/lAL 1003 Depalpur 2600 2000 Total 16618 ________________________________________________________________________ Name of District Dale of transfer Units transferred. ________________________________________________________________________ Gujranwala. 02‑12‑1961 5(HX) Sheikhupura 02‑12‑1961 5000 Sheikhupura 21‑04‑1962 800 Sheikhupura 25‑10‑1962 2000 08‑01‑1963 1502 Total: 9302 Bahawalnagar 27‑02‑1961 600 (Chak 317, Tehsil Fortabbas) Multan 05-0 9‑1961 480 (Chak No.445‑EB Tehsil Vehari). D.G. Khan 07‑09‑1961 35000 Note: 500 Units for Razia Niaz were found without signatures and without (late with pencil. Total 5080

14. From this report it is clear that 5()00 Units were transferred to Gujranwala district on 2‑12‑1961 and on 7‑9‑19)1 3500 Units were transferred to District D.G. Khan. The Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan vide his letter No.2458/AC(S)/RSO, dated 4‑9‑1991, reported that no units were transferred from D.G. Khan District to Gujranwala District. However, since D.G. Khan was split up into two districts i.e. D.G. Khan and Rajanpur, therefore a report was also obtained from the D.C. Rajanpur who stated vide his No.630/NTO, dated 18‑8‑1991 that allotment of 141.1 PlUs was made in tehsil Rajanpur whereas 1556 units situated in tehsil Jampur were subsequently cancelled due to double allotment. 1t thus follows that no units were transferred from D.G. Khan district to Gujranwala district at any stage and therefore the answer to the second observation in the remand order regarding full satisfaction of the claim of Mueen‑ud‑Din in D.G. Khan district is in the negative. This now brings us to the next point i.e. allotment made in, Gujranwala district.

15. It has already been seen that 50()0 units were transferred to Gujranwala district from Sahiwal district on 2‑12‑1961. Assuming that these units were validly transferred, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, then the sequence of allotment in Gujranwala district has to be examined. The respective contentions of the learned counsel regarding allotment of these 5000 units have been reproduced above which show that these units were fully satisfied till 1‑3‑1963 when the last allotment in village Kamoke to the extent of 800 units was made. Any allotment obtained subsequently i.e. the one made on Khata No.444 RL‑11 of village Kalianwala, tehsil Halizabad on 11‑6‑1968 was thus made without any pending entitlement of hlucen‑ud‑Din in district Gqjranwala. A perusal of the aforesaid Khata on RL‑11 shows that it has been tampered with liberally and without any inhibition. The allotment is thus apparently forged and fabricated. However, since the allottee/vendee/person in possession has not been heard therefore this part of (he case i.e. the cancellation of allotment in village Kalianwala will be taken up separately for hearing the parties.

16. The allotment in village Kalianwala is to be excluded from the valid allotments obtained by Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan in Gujranwala being subsequent in time to the allotment made in Kamoke in accordance with the dictum laid down in 1984 SCMR 1338 and the time honoured practice followed by the Settlement Authorities in determining the cases of double allotments whereby the earlier allotments have always been treated to be valid and correct, other things being equal, as against the later allotment in terms of time. The allotment in Kalianwala made in the year 1968 has thus to be excluded from the units calculated in Mian Ehsan‑ul‑Haq, Secretary (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner's (in‑complete) finding reproduced in para. 10 of this order. This would reduce the allotment of Mueen‑ud‑Din from 5888 (menu 1133) to 4755 PIUs according to the special Jamabandi of 1946‑47, an in terms of RL‑Its from 4989 to 4198 PIUs. If 800 units in Kamok allotted on 1‑3‑1963 are added according to RL‑11, the total would com to 4998 which is within entitlement of 5000 PIUs. However evaluation these 800 units according to the special Jamabandi would raise the tot allotment in Gujranwala district in favour of Mueen‑ud‑Din to 5555 unit i.e. an excess of 555 PIUs. This apparent excess when distributed over the entire range of allotments in Gujranwala (excluding Kalianwala comes to 557 units in Dandian, Tong Uchha, Chak Rajada, Masanda; Jandianwala Bagh and Sodoke, without affecting the allotment made in village Kamoke which is thus found to be without any blemish. Indeed the incomplete enquiry of Mian Ehsan‑ul‑Haq, Settlement Commission (Headquarters) is silent on this point which means that the allotment in Kamoke was not in excess of entitlement otherwise it would have duly been commented upon. For several reasons such as the lapse of time since the allotments in these six villages and these (allotments) have not been questioned for a long time etc, I do not propose to examine this issue any further here.

17. The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that there is nothing wrong with the allotment made to Mr. Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan at Khata No.107 RL‑11 d village Kamoke, District Gujranwala. The order of the Addition Settlement Commissioner exercising power of the Chief Settleme Commissioner, dated 28‑2‑1978 is, therefore, set aside and the allotme of Mr. Mueen‑ud‑Din Khan at Khata No.107 RL‑11 of village Kamoke restored.

18. The subsequent allotment of the land in dispute to Bootay Khan a Shaukat Ali automatically stands cancelled as this area was not available f allotment. However since the matter has been under litigation, therefore Bootay Khan and Shaukat Ali's claim becomes pending proceeding within the meaning of section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975. It is according ordered that they shall be allotted any available land against their pending claim.

19. The orders in this case were reserved for ascertaining the over position of allotments to Mr. Mueen-ud‑Din Khan in the Province and shall now be communicated to the parties.

20. A show‑cause notice shall also be issued to the allottees/ persons possession of the land said to have been allotted to Mr. Muccn‑ud Khan in village Kalianwala, Tehsil Hafirabad, District Gujranwala Khata No.444 of RL‑11 as to why the allotments should not cancelled. Heard. The clerical/typographical mistake is corrected, as prayed for, at page 1 and at page 11 of my order dated 12‑10‑1991. Khata N6.107 RL‑11 occurring therein will be read instead as Khata No.1045 RL‑

11. A,A./477/R Orders accordingly.