1975 PLP 135 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioners are Muslim mortgagees of agricultural land belonging to non‑Muslims in India. They were allotted land temporarily in lieu of mortgagee rights in Chak No. 96/N. B., Tehsil and District Sargodha. Under the Scheme they were not entitled to its transfer and were required to surrender it for allotment to entitled persons. On the 4th April 1962, their allotment was cancelled and the land was allotted to respondents Nos. 2 to 14 in lieu of their verified claims. On the 11th April 1962 a new set of instructions was issued under Settlement Scheme No. I under which allottees of agricultural land in lieu of mortgage rights were made eligible to purchase the land on payment of Rs. 10 per Produce Index Unit. The petitioners agitated before the Settlement and Rehabilitation authori ties for restitution of their allotment on the basis of the new instructions but their claim was rejected as the instructions were not applicable with retrospective effect. Under the original memorandum the petitioners had as mentioned above no right for transfer of the land in their temporary allotment. Under para. 10 they were required to surrender the land which was to be allotted to other "entitled claimants under the Scheme". The allotment in favour of the petitioners was cancelled under this paragraph and the land in their temporary possession was allotted to respondents Nos. 2 to

14. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were accordingly rejected. The petitioners challenged the orders in Settlement Revision No. 11 of 1964 in the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that it was not competent in law. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the High Court which too has been dismissed fn limine by a learned Judge agreeing with the view formed by the Settlement authorities. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court reiterating the grounds which have not found favour with the learned Judge of the High Court. While one feels sympathy for the petitioners as they have lost valu able proprietary rights by being out of date by one week only but the law must take its course. Moreover proprietary rights of respondents Nos. 2 to 14 have since come into existence which cannot be put in jeopardy out of compassion for the petitioners. They bad no right to obtain transfer of the land on the date on which it was taken away from them and given to respondents Nos. 2 to 14 who were entitled under the Scheme. Further the land has since been permanently settled on the respondents under section 15 of the Land Settlement Act and they have become its absolute owners under section

16. No interference with their rights will in the circumstances be justified in law. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.