P L D 1969 Lahore 686 (PLP)

3. In support of the petition, Mr. Khalilur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner was holding a non‑transferable post in the Finger Print Bureau at Phillaur and that he would have continued to serve there indefinitely had it not been for the disturbances which forced him to migrate to the territory now forming part of Pakistan. According to the learned counsel if the disturbances had not occurred, he would have formally and ordinarily stayed at Phillaur in East Punjab, Bharat, and more so, when under an agreement made between the Provinces of East Punjab and West Punjab, at the time of Partition, the Finger Print Bureau at Phillaur was to cater to both the provinces. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner had to flee from Phillaur to save his life and, for that matter the lives of his family members and took refuge in Pakistan. On these premises, he contended that the petitioner is a displaced person, within the meaning of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and was entitled to the transfer of the property in dispute.

4. In reply, Mian Mohyuddin, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has contended that the petitioner originally comes from Sialkot where he owns ancestral property even today. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner joined Police Service in the year 1927 and became a Finger Print Expert during the course of his employment, and while in service at Phillaur he had been visiting his ancestral place and had no intention to permanently settle there. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner himself filed an L, H. Form and was rightly treated as a local.

5. After hearing the learned counsel‑for the parties and on a careful consideration of the authorities cited before me, I am satisfied that the petitioner is a local and cannot be treated as a displaced person for the purposes of the transfer of the property in dispute. Mr. Khalil Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited before me the whole case‑law on the point at issue. He has referred me to lmdad Ali Malik v. The Settlement Commissioner (Policy) (P L D 1962 Lah. 502); Mrs. Keays Byrne v. The Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1963 Lah. 88) ; Mahboob Elahi v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan (P L D 1963 Lah. 214) ; Syed Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah and others (P L D 1963 Lah. 548) and Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Aziz and another (P L D 1965 Lah. 590). In these cases, certain guidelines have been laid down for determining the question whether a person, who has migrated from India after Partition, should be considered to be a local or a displaced person. The leading decision on the point is Syed Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah and others, a Full Bench decision, referred to above. This decision was also approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1952, Amirzada and another v. Mst. Sardar Begum and another, decided on 25th of October 1963, and C. P. S. L. A. No. 283 of 1964, decided on the 26th November 1964. The above Full Bench of this Court has laid down the following principles for the determination of such a question :‑ (i) That a person, in order to qualify himself as a displaced person, must have had a permanent residence or such continuous habitation in that part of British‑India which now forms India with no immediate intention of leaving the same but for the reasons given in the definition of the term `displaced person', and (ii) that in the case of persons who have their permanent residences in that part of British‑India which now forms part of Pakistan, it would be a question of fact to tie decided in the circumstances and light of each case whether the residence of these persons in that part of British‑India which now forms part of India was of such a character and nature that they would not have abandoned the same but for the civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in that area. As their Lordships have rightly pointed out, the true position in law in such cases would be whether the inferences which have been raised by the Settlement authorities could be made in the circumstances of a particular case. It is from this angle that the case of the petitioner shall have to be considered in the present writ petition.

6. It will be noticed that the question whether a person is a local or a displaced person depends on the circumstances and facts of each case. It is more or less a question of fact. In the present case, all the Settlement authorities have held the petitioner to be a local. It is quite correct that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has at one place in his judgment held the petitioner to be a displaced person, but the whole tenor of the judgment points clearly to the fact that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner treated the petitioner as a local and, in the final analysis, held him to be so. This finding arrived at by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was affirmed in revision by the Settlement Commissioner who, in this connection, has remarked as under :‑ "I have heard the arguments of the parties and consulted the record. The police officials posted at the Police Training School, Phillaur, like the petitioner, were provided with Government accommodation which they could only retain till the expiry of their tenure of service at that station. The petitioner does not deny that he belongs to the Sialkot District and, admittedly, he did not abandon any property in India, or else he would have put in a C.H. Form, which could indicate that he had no intention to adopt the place as permanent residence. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held to be a displaced person. The house sought by .the petitioner to be transferred to him is worth more than Rs. 10,000.00, and its division for the purpose of accommoda ting a local, like him, is not warranted. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with this petition, which is rejected accordingly."

7. In the present case, as has been stated earlier, admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the district of Sialkot. It is not his case that he left his permanent abode in Sialkot District lock, stock and barrel. On the other hand, he had, and still has, his ancestral house and other property there. During the course of arguments, I inquired from the petitioner whether or not during his stay at Phillaur he used to visit Sialkot. The spontaneous reply was that there was no bar in going to Sialkot and that, off and on, he had been visiting his ancestral place. The irresistible inference that emerges out for acceptance, in the circumstances, is that the petitioner was staying at Phillaur on account of the exigency of service, pure and simple; and had no intention whatever to settle there permanently. It was pointed out that the petitioner was holding a non‑transferable post. That, however, does not ease the situation. At the most, he would have stayed there till his retirement which was, again, an incidence of his service. There is no evidence that he had abandoned his original home for good, or that he had settled at Phillaur permanently. No such circumstance had been brought on the record. In these circumstances, I consider that the petitioner, being in Government service, had a temporary residence at Phillaur before Partition and had to abandon that place at the time of Partition because he had opted for Pakistan. I am fortified in this view by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in a case reported as Imdad Ali Malik v. The Settlement Commissioner (Policy), wherein it was held that a Government servant belonging to territories now forming part of Pakistan residing in course of his employment at the time of Partition in area now forming part of India is not a displaced person. In Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Aziz and another, a Division Bench of this Court observed asunder :‑‑ "The matter is now settled by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in several cases upholding the view that a temporary residence before Partition in the territories now forming part of Bharat which a person had to abandon at the time of Partition would not invest him with the status of a displaced person." Considering the case of the petitioner in this light, I am satisfied that the petitioner was residing at Phillaur (Bharat) only temporarily on account of the exigency of service, that he had not permanently settled there, that he had been visiting his native place in the District of Sialkot from time to time white on A leave and that simply because he had to abandon his place of service at the time of Partition he cannot be invested with the status of a displaced person. In these circumstances, the property in dispute was rightly not transferred to him.

8. In the result, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. A. E. Petition dismissed.