1994 PLP 395 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Ejected Tenants Scheme, 1963‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Mutual exchange of evacuee property and State land‑‑‑Land in question though State land stood excluded from such exchange‑‑‑Allotment of land in question, as a State land to tenants under Ejected Tenants Scheme, 1963 and conferring proprietary rights on allottees, could not be objected to for such land retained its character as a State land‑‑‑Allotment of such land as evacuee land was thus, impermissible. Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1991. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the declaration of Killa No.2, Square No.51 of Chak 275/J.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad of which the appellant was the allottee as a State‑land and not evacuee‑land was correctly upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment and whether the appellant was entitled to no relief in spite of the fact that the aforesaid land remains allotted to her and in her possession since 1953.

2. The facts of the case show that in 1953, the appellant got allotted this disputed land against her verified claim alongwith other land in the vicinity of this Chak. At that time the disputed land was `State property'. Subsequently, the, State exchanged its own land with certain evacuee land and in this manner the exchanged evacuee land became State land and State land became evacuee land. Mutation No.358 dated 5‑4‑1966 was sanctioned giving effect to this exchange. This Killa No.2 of Sq.. No.51 stood allotted as State land to one Arshad who agitated for conferment of proprietary rights. During the course of proceedings, it was found by the Additional Commissioner and by the Board of Revenue that the land which stood allotted to the appellant had at all material times remained State property and was neither exchanged as evacuee property to become evacuee, nor had it become evacuee by any other process. It was unallotable against those verified claims.

3. The High Court after examining the history of the land in dispute has come to the conclusion that no material was brought on record so as to justify interference with this factual finding.

4. Malik Talib Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has appeared to press the case of the appellant on the basis of list which was taken note of when the Constitution Petition was admitted in the High Court. It shows that this disputed Killa number was included in the exchange. There is no other document to which reference has been made in order to sustain such an exchange whereby what was admittedly State land became evacuee land.

5. The mutation which formally sanctions the exchange certainly does not mention this Killa number. Without it the area exchanged has been correctly worked out. There is no document of superior value or strength which might prevail over the mutation. The Government Offices having the custody of the record have examined this question of fact at various levels and had come to the conclusion always that this property stood excluded from the exchange. It had character of State land and continued to retain it. On' this finding, the allotment of it against verified claim would be impermissible.

6. In the circumstances, .we find that it is not possible to interfere with the order of the authorities conferring proprietary rights on the allottee under the Ejected Tenants Scheme because the appellant had no title to this land. The appeal is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. A.A./S‑781/S Appeal dismissed.