1986 PLP 1309 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11/21‑‑Allotment of land‑‑Petitioner claiming to have purchased land in dispute through a claimant‑‑Record slowing that a positive finding was available by Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner confirming land in favour of allottee and his allotment neither terminated nor cancelled at any stage by Settlement Authority‑‑Subsequent allotment of said land in favour of claimant, through whom petitioner claimed his title on basis of a registered deed, held, invalid. Zaheeruddin Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Ghiasuddin Balouch for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 10th April, 1986. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been filed to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, dated 29th of June, 1980, whereby he maintained the allotment of. Survey No. 446 of Deh Pusia, Taluka Khafrpur Nathan Shah, Dadu, in favour of Mir Iftikhar Ali, being a prior allottee of the land, and cancelled the allotment of Kassim son of Karim in respect of the same survey number having been made such after the pirst allotment. The case of the petitioner is that the land in dispute Was allotted to Kassim, vide Khatuni No. 32, dated 7‑10‑1972, and this land was sold by the claimant through his attorney to the present petitioner by a registered sale‑deed, dated 4‑12‑1972. It appears that the allotment made in favour of Kassim son of Karim (claimant) was cancelled on the application of Mir Iftikhar Ali by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, vide his order No. 245, dated 14‑3‑1973. The aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, was challenged in a Revision Petitioq under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, before a D.B. of the then. High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which was allowed on 21‑12‑1975, and the case was remanded back tp the Additional Settlement Commissiongr (Lands), Dadu, for decision according to the law on the ground that Nazimuddin, the present petitioner, who was purchaser from the claimant, Kassim, was not impleadeh as a party in the case, which was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu. After remand of the case, the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, onch again cancelled the order of the allotment in favour of Kassim, and maintained the allotment of Mir Iftikhar Ali on the ground that Mir Iftikhar Ali is a prior allottee, vide Khatuni No. 16, dated 26‑1‑1963, whereas Kassim was an allottee subsequent to that, vide Khatuni No. 32, dated 7‑10‑1972. Mir Zaheeruddin Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the disputed Survey No. 446 was allotted to Mir Iftikhar Ali on 26‑1‑1963, and that the said allotment was confirmed by the Settlement Authorities. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. There is a positive finding by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu, who is also the Additional Settlement. Commissioner (Lands) that thr~ land in dispute was 0,allotted to Mir Iftikhar Ali on 26‑1‑1963, vide Khatuni No.

16. It is specifically stated in the impugned order that the allotment was made in favour o Kassim, vide Khatuni No. 32, dated 7‑10‑1972. In view of these categorical findings by the Settlement Authorities, who had access t the original record, I cannot accept the statement of the petitioner that the land in dispute was not allotted to the claimant, Mir Iftikha Ali, as stated in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. There is nothing on record to show that the allotment made in favour of Mix Iftikhar Ali on .26‑1‑1963, vide Khatuni No. 16 was terminated, or, cancelled at any stage by the Settlement Authorities. In these circumstances, there can be no exception to the order of the Deputy Commissioner in holding that the prior allotment in favour of Mir Iftikha Ali stands and the subsequent allotment in favour of Kassim son o Karim is invalid. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that there was an order by this Court, dated 7‑12‑1980, directing the petitioner to file accounts in respect of Rabi and Kharif crops. The learned counsel states that the petitioner has filed accounts, and, if there, is any objection to the filing of such accounts, the respondent No.3 is at liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.