P L D 1993 Lahore 572 (PLP)

15 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in Killa Nos. 11, 20/1 of Square No.41 at Chak No.3917/GB in Tehsil Samundri was owned by non-Muslim evacuee. It was initially proposed for allotment to the respondents in the year 1952. On 10-5-1955, the proposal was recalled from their names on the ground of alleged transfer of units of their verified claim elsewhere. Thereupon, the land was proposed for settlement to the petitioners on 27-6-1955. Against the cancellation order passed on 10-5-1955, an appeal was preferred by the affected party to Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Multan Division, who allowed the appeal on 20-2-1958, Copy of the order was not on file. Petitioners assailed the order passed in appeal before the High Court in Writ Petition No.17/R of 1960. It was allowed on 10th June, 1963, and the impugned order dated 22nd of February, 1958, was set aside on the short ground that it infringed rule of natural justice. Order passed by the High Court was implemented by the Rehabilitation Authority with the consequence that the cancellation order passed on 10-5-1955 was revived. I am disinclined to comment, whether this was the true import of the order passed by the High Court. On the strength of proposal respecting the land petitioners instituted a suit that they were its owners in possession and the respondents were not authorized to cause interference with their proprietary as well as possessory rights. Defendants contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; plaint was deficiently assessed for purposes of court-fee; the form of the suit was defective and on merits, it was averred that they were in possession of the land as its owners in accordance with the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, on 22-2-1958. On 29-7-1974, the trial Court framed following issues for determination:

(1) Wcther the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD, (2) Whether the plain has not been properly stamped? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiff are in possession of the suit land? OPP (4) If issue No.3 is proved in favour of the plaintiffs, whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as owners? OPP. (5) Relief, In support of the above issues, parties gave oral evidence and relied upon documents to support their respective versions. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners on 10-12-1975. Respondents preferred an appeal to learned District Judge, Faisalabad. He marked the appeal for its hearing to learned Additional District Judge who accepted it on 22-7-1981, with the result that the suit instituted by the petitioners was dismissed on score of want of jurisdiction in the Civil Court to hold its trial. Against this judgment petitioners came up in revision to this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 3-4-1982. It was not disputed that the matter for settlement of land had not proceeded beyond its mere proposal in favour of the petitioners. An order for confirmation of the proposal never came in existence. Proposal in Itself was not equivalent to its confirmation or actual settlement of land contained in it. An order for its confirmation was required to be made by the competent authority. However, the proposal for allotment of the evacuee land gave rise to a right for its conformal ion in accordance with Settlement Laws. Unless the proposal was knocked out in accordance with due process of law, it was liable to confirmation in favour of the proposed allottee. In my opinion, proposal for allotment of evacuee land did not transfer ownership rights in it in favour of the proposed allottee. Ownership rights still vested in the Central Government as successor to the erstwhile evacuee owner whose rights it came to hold for its further transfer to the displaced persons from India. Therefore, proposal for settlement of the evacuee land did not invest the petitioners with ownership rights in it. Hence the claim for ownership to the land by the petitioners was untenable. Reference to the plaint would sufficiently indicate that the petitioners' case was in substance for declaration of title and for consequential relief which flew from the title sought to be established. Upon failing to prove clear title to the land the petitioners were not entitled to consequential injunctive relief regarding their possession on the land in dispute. In this behalf, reference is made to Ayesha Begum and others v. Nibaran Chandra and others PLD 1963 Dacca

172. The principle laid down in the precedent case was not differed with in the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. Muhammad Ishaque 1980 C L C 2056. It was significant to notice that the cause 'in the plaint itself was based on proposal dated 27-6-1955 and there was no reference to its confirmation anywhere in the plaint. For the reasons recorded above, I would uphold the impugned decision and dismiss the civil revision by leaving the parties to bear their own costs of the litigation throughout. Before closing, it was necessary to observe that in absence of a proper confirmation order, the 'proposal' in favour of the petitioners must be held to be a 'pending case' for being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal), Act, 1975. Since the matter was required to be dealt with by a "Notified Officer" in accordance with afore noticed law, I shall refrain from offering any comment on the entitlement of the petitioners to the land-in-dispute. Records be returned. AA./W-34/L Petition dismissed.