1997 SCMR 1105 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Allotment of land in question, in favour of predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners was cancelled on basis of Mukhbari application submitted by predecessor of respondents‑‑‑High Court directed that petitioner should be sold land in question to the extent of their entitlement while rest of the land be allotted to respondents (Mukhbar)‑‑ Part of the land was allotted to respondents while rest was sold to petitioners on direction of High Court in earlier round of litigation‑‑‑High Court in subsequent round of litigation found that specified area had been rightly allotted to petitioners after remand order of High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No cogent reasons were shown to differ with finding of High Court‑‑‑High Court while making order in subsequent Constitutional petition was mindful of the order passed bN High Court in earlier Constitutional petition‑‑‑High Court had rightly stated in its order in subsequent Constitutional petition that in case respondents were allotted land more than their entitlement, Chief Settlement Commissioner alone could examine such issue‑‑‑No legal infirmity was pointed out in order question, of High Court‑‑‑Leave was refused in circumstances. Awan Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate instructed by Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th July, 1995. MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal arises from the facts that Shaukat Ali a displaced person was allotted evacuee land at Khata R.L.II No.

184. Village Killa Deedar Singh, which was transferred through sale to Nasib Anwar and Ziaullah from whom Ghulam Murtaza father of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and husband of Mst. Amna Bibi petitioner No.3 and Sardar Ali petitioner No.5 and others purchased 148 Kanals 17 Marlas of land out of the same Khata. Mst. Shah Bibi, mother of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Baqar respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a Mukhabari Application against Shaukat Ali alleging fraud and misrepresentation in the matter of allotment of land to him, which was allowed on 25‑3‑1976 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner directing that the resumed land shall be allotted to Mst. Shah Bibi subject to her entitlement. Ghulam Murtaza and Sardar Ali challenged this order through Writ Petition No.623/R of 1976 which was allowed on 9‑12‑1985 directing that 'the petitioners may be sold the land in dispute to the extent of their entitlement under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. The rest of the land be allotted to the respondent No.2 (Shah Bibi) as ordered by the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 25‑3‑1976. To the extent that the land is sold to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 therefore does not get the units adjusted, those shall be adjusted from other area available". Thereafter, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allotted land measuring 74 Kanals to the respondents/informer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Writ Petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which has been dismissed vide impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the informer/predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has been allotted land in excess of her entitlement; that while passing impugned order the High Court has just ignored the earlier order of the High Court dated 9‑12‑1985 whereby the petitioners were found entitled to purchase the land under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 and then rest of the land was to be given to the respondents Nos.2 and 3.

3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. We do not agree with him. We find that the High Court has attended to these arguments in the impugned order. The High Court has observed that the "petitioners have been given 74 Kanals of land which was only available to them out of 148 Kanals of land. It is stated by the learned counsel for respondents that apart from 74 Kanals of land, petitioners also own more area and in this way, they are in possession of an area equal to subsisting holding. This is the disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into. The petitioners have not placed any order of Chief Settlement Commissioner allotting them 74 Kanals of land. As to the question of excess land made in favour of respondents, it is not for this Court to decide this issue particularly when this is also denied and disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, Ch. Muhammad Farooq. In view of this, the area measuring 74 Kanals has rightly been allotted to the petitioners after remand order passed by this Court". We do not see any cogent reason to differ with the High Court's observations and reasoning. In all fairness to the parties, the High Court in paragraph 6 of its order has stated that "in case the respondents/informers have been allotted land more than their entitlement, it is for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to examine this issue but no case is trade out in this writ petition". Bare reading of paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment/order will show that the High Court was mindful of the order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ petition. We do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.

4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑3131/S Leave refused.