1983 PLP 744 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal ,against the judgment dated 19‑8‑1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents (W.P. No. I 10‑R of 1975) was accepted and the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner dated 6‑2‑1975 passed in favour of the petitioner herein was set aside. The relevant facts are that the petitioner, who was the temporary allottee of the land in dispute, had submitted claim in respect of the evacuee agricultural land abandoned by his father, Habib Ali, in Patiala State (East Punjab). This was verified to the extent of one Bigha and 8 Biswas only and7 in lieu thereof he was confirmed 19 Marlas out of the land in his temporary allotment. The remaining area was allotted to the respondents. However, according to the petitioner, this allotment was subject to re-verification of his claim for which he was agitating on the ground that he was also entitled to the area abandoned by his real uncles. On re-verification, the petitioner herein was found to be entitled to the area abandoned by his uncles, Imamud din and Wazir Ali, on the basis that he was their sole heir. In the meantime, as the area in dispute had been allotted to the respondents, the petitioner could not get any benefit of this re-verification. After protracted litigation including a writ petition filed by the Petitioner before the Lahore High (W. P. No. 842 of 1964), whereby the case was remanded by the High Court vide its order dated 17‑11‑1971 to the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities, to allow the Central Record Office to examine the plea of the petitioner, with regard to his claim to the area abandoned by his uncles ; the Additional Settlement Commissioner ultimately, vide his order dated 6‑2‑1975, ordered that land equivalent to 53 P.

1. Units be confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The respondents having lost 53 P. I. Units, out of the area erstwhile confirmed in their favour, also approached the High Court with a writ petition (W. P. No. 110‑R of 1975) to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 6‑2‑1975. This petition was accepted by the impugned order, passed 'by a\learned Single Judge, who held that the mere fact that the claim of the petitioner herein was re-verified did not constitute a legitimate ground for disturbing the allotment of the respondents herein. He, therefore, set aside the order dated 6‑2‑1975 and allowed the area previously confirmed in their favour to remain with them. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Kh. Ghulam Qadir, learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia contended that the learned Judge in the High Court has overlooked the provisions of Para. 20 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (Part II whereby the Rehabilitation authorities have been directed to safeguard the interest of those refugees whose claims and objections are pending verification, while making allotment under the Scheme. In this connection it has been stipulated that "in the case of claims which have been returned for re- verification the areas that are already verified should be allotted in rehabilita tion settlement ; and the remaining area for which objection has been lodged should be reserved to the extent of 75 per cent of the equivalent of a additional area claimed." The submission is that while the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 6‑2‑1975 was in conformity with this provision the impugned order of the High Court hag totally ignored it. The contention raised above requires further consideration. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. Security in the sum of Rs.

500. As this is a very old case (the petition for leave having been instituted. in 1976) it should be made ready for hearing as expeditiously as possible and put up for hearing as soon as the appeal is ripe for hearing. Leave granted.