1975 PLP 481 (SCMR)

One Mst. Banno widow of Chaju Khan, a displaced persons from "agreed area" filed her claim in Chak No. 26 G. B. Tehsil and District Lyallpur, which incidentally is a "congested area." Her claim was verified for 3089 P. I. Units and land equivalent to 173:' P. I. Units was also allotted in her name in Chak No. 26 G. B. at R. L. II

761. The remaining 1315 units were transferred to village Wahid Bakhsh Lar, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan on 23‑1‑1958 and the same were satisfied in that village on 29‑10‑1958 at R. L. II‑

9. Mst. Banno having died in the meantime, a mutation of inheritance was entered in Chak No. 26 G. B. and attested in favour of her various heirs as follows; (1) Mst. Jannat (Daughter of deceased) = 9/16=1759 P. I. U. (2) Boota (brother of deceased)= 1/16=194 P. I U. (3) Rabu Khan (nephew of Chaju Khan, deceased's husband)=6/16=l956 P.I.U. Mst. Jannat also died in the meantime and the petitioners herein are her heirs under the Muslim Law of Inheritance. Babu Khan is respondent 1 herein. After the death of Mst. Banno, the A. R. C. (L). Lyallpur, by order dated 17‑11‑1958, out of the area initially confirmed to Mst. Banno, de-confirmed an area equivalent to 756 P. I. Units on the ex jade mistaken view that Boota Khan and Babu Khan respondents not being sitting allotees in the Chak could not have been allotted land in respect of their shares in tine inheritance to Mst. Banno the deceased right‑holder. Neither Boota Khan and Babu Khan went in appeal and the matter rested at for the time being. Boots Khan cook: his units elsewhere and does not figure in this litigation. The heirs of Mst. Jannat the petitioners herein, in the meantime sold the entire remainder land out of the confirmed allotment of Mst. Banno in Chak No. 26/G. B. and appropriated the sale proceeds to themselves to the exclusion of Babu Khan respondent 1 herein or Boota Khan. On coming to know of the aforesaid sale Babu Khan applied to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) Sadiqabad praying that 1956 units allotted to the heirs of Mst. Banno in village Wahid Bakhsh Lar, should be given to him to the exclusion of the heirs of Mst. Jannat the petitioners herein. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide Order 22‑7‑1971 directed that either the peti tioners should pay the pro rata share in the sale proceeds of the land sold by them in Chak No. 26/G. B. or else Babu Khan will be entitled to the land equivalent to 1113 P. I. Units in village Wahid Bakhsh Lar with a corresponding reduction in the entitlement of the petitioners herein. The petitioners challenged the above order in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who accepted the same on 3-11‑1971. Respondent 1 then filed a revision which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 13‑4‑1972. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that the petitioners having sold the entire land which had devolved upon them from Mst. Banno through her daughter Mst. Jannat and having appropriated the sale proceeds were bound to make up the deficiency in the share of the land thus occasioned to respondent Babu Khan in village Wahid Bakhsh Lar, and that to allow the petitioners their full share in the land in village Wahid Bakhah Lar, also after they had appropriated the entire sale proceeds of the land situate in Chak No. 26/G. B. would be against "justice and equity". Accordingly, the learned Settlement Commis sioner restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Aggrieved by the above order of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners filed writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, who upheld the revisional order of the Settlement commissioner and the reasons upon which it was based. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent 1 and Boota Khan having failed to file appeal against the order of the A. R. C. (L) dated 17‑11‑1958 by which an area equivalent to 756 P. I. units in Chak No. 26/G. B. was de-confirmed on the ground that Boots Khan and Babu Khan were not sitting allottees in that Chak, that order had attained finality against them and that being so, they were not entitled to claim any share in the land situate in that Chak, or for that matter any share in the sale proceeds the land in that Chak. It was submitted that there was no valid basis for the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner which was upheld by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. We are unable to agree with the argument of learned counsel. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge in the High Court that the land in Chak No. 26/G. B. had been allotted in the name of Mst. Banno in respect of her land claim and her every heir (including Babu Khan Respondent (1) was entitled to a proportionate share in the entire allotment. Therefore, the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner which was upheld by the High Court, in effect compensated respondent No. 1. for what was denied to him out of the allotment in Chak No. 26/G. B. or its sale proceeds as co‑sharer. The impugned order was, therefore, eminently just and proper to which no exception could possibly be taken, much less in the writ jurisdic tion of the High Court, which as observed by this Court in a number of cases can be invoked in aid of justice only. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.