1989SCMR583 (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 10/11‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner challenging order of Rehabilitation Authorities allotting land to refugees on ground that same having been held by predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners jointly with non Muslims could not be allotted to refugees except after partition of the same‑ Order of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner showing that allotments were made to refugees from Hissadari Qabza of non‑Muslim evacuees and it excluded that land which was sold by petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest to non‑Muslim evacuees‑‑Order of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner was maintained by Deputy Custodian and thereafter upheld by Custodian‑‑Perusal of record also showed that land in dispute was sold by petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest to evacuees through two regular sale‑deeds and that therefore land in question was evacuee property and it was out of this land that allotments were made to different displaced persons‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against said order of allotment dismissed. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. A.W. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13 March, 1982 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was Qaisra who embraced Islam and was known as Muhammad Din. He owned some land in district Sheikhupura. Part of this land consisted of joint holding with evacuees, and out of this joint holding rehabilitation authorities made allotments to refugees. Thereupon the said Kaisra challenged those allotments on the ground that these could not be made without getting joint Khata partitioned but, his petition was rejected by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner holding that no area under the possession of Hissadari Qabza of Kaisra was allotted to the refugees, and that the allotment to the refugees was made only of those areas which were previously under the Hissadari possession of the non‑Muslims. Thereafter Kaisra moved the Deputy Custodian and his prayer to the effect that the area owned by him should be partitioned from that of the non‑Muslim evacuees was accepted. Then the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) in compliance with the aforesaid order partitioned certain Khala numbers. On this Ejaz Ahmad respondent who had been made allotment out of the aforesaid Khatas tiled appeals which were dismissed. His revision petitions, writ petition, and LPA were dismissed one after the other but an observation made to the effect that the sale‑deeds in favour of the evacuees by the said Kaisra of a portion of his land on which Ejaz Ahmad respondent relied may be produced before the Custodian authorities. Thereupon Ejaz Ahmad respondent moved the Deputy Custodian who vide his order dated 26 September, 1974 held that a portion of land was sold by Kaisra in favour of the evacuees vide registered sale‑deeds dated 5 February, 1940 and 9 July, 19‑17 and that therefore this was evacuee property. It was also held that the land allotted to the refugees was likewise evacuee and it should be restored to the allottecs. He therefore directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) to recover Bhatai from the petitioners (i.e. successors‑in interest of Kaisra) from March 1947 to Rabi 1974 as land revenue. It may be mentioned here in passing that Kaisra had died in 1960 without any issue. He left behind Mst. Sakina Bibi his widow and the present petitioners who are his collaterals. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Deputy Custodian by way of revision petition before the Custodian but did not succeed. Thereafter the order of the Custodian was challenged before a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the land owned by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was a joint holding with non‑Muslim evacuees and that it should have not been allotted to the refugees except after partition of the same. But this contention of learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners has not been accepted by any of the courts which were seized with this matter. It is evident from the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner that the allotments made to the. refugees in 1952 were only from the Hissadari Qabza of the non‑Muslim evacuees and it excluded that land which was sold by Kaisra to non‑Muslim evacuees. This order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner had been maintained by the Deputy Custodian and thereafter upheld by the Custodian. It is in this background that the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. As it is evident from the record that land measuring 579 Kanals and 18 Marlas was sold by Kaisra to Harbans Singh and Jaspal Singh through two registered sale‑deeds and that therefore this land was evacuee property. It was out of this land that allotments were made to different displaced persons and these had been restored to the allottees. Since this is the position we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./G‑153/S Petition dismissed.