1980 PLP 640 (CLC)

Shukar Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. He abandoned some agricultural land in the occupied area for which the petitioner submitted claim No. 6423. It was verified in terms of 369 P. 1, Units. The first allotment was made at Khata 94 of village Charwah, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot on 20th September 1964. It covered an area measuring 56 kanals, 18 marlas equivalent to 152 P. I. Units, comprising 7 khasras. Out of the claim of the petitioner's predecessor-in interest 169 P. I. Units were transferred to some other villages in the same Tehsil, 48 P.

1. Units are stated to have been allotted to the petitioner at Khata

96. All these allotments would have satisfied his claim in its entirety.

2. On 14th April 1970, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sialkot cancelled the allotment of one Abdul Hameed and directed that the same be included in the compensation pool of Jummu & Kashmir refugees. The petitioner and respondents filed appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 9th August 1971, maintained the order dated 14th April 1970, about cancellation but directed that the land be dis tributed to petitioner and contesting respondents rateably. Both the petitioner and the respondents filed revision petitions which were dismissed on 17th November 1976, and hence the present writ petition.

3. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 92 kanals 5 marlas of land as shown in red in the Annexure `A' (Copy of Khata No. 94-96 R. L.-11) had been given to the petitioner in consolidation proceedings in lieu of 56 kanals 18 marlas of land allotted to him originally on 10/20th September 1964. The learned counsel for the respondents. however, controverted this submission by placing on record a document showing that only Khasra Nos. 941, 942. 943, 944, 947, 949, 950, 951 and 952 had been allotted to the petitioner in consolidation proceedings it view of the original allotment. According to him Khasras Nos. 734, 953, 954, 1325 and 1326 had been included by the petitioner in his allotment deceitfully and unauthorized.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that his clients had no interest in the land allotted to the petitioner and that he had no intention to claim any land out of the same. He, however, challenged the genuineness and validity of the petitioner's allotment at Khata No.

96. The case of the contesting respondents was that the land cancelled from the name of Abdul Hameed could not be allotted to the petitioner in its entirety and was rightly ordered to be shared by the respondents as well.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not meet the objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting, respondents. He also could not show that any land had been validly allotted to the petitioner at Khata No.

96. The claim of the respondents that they were not interested in the allotment of the petitioner was also not controverted,

6. After hearing the learned counsel fur the parties and going through the record before me. I find that there is no force in the contentions being raised by the petitioner. No land validly allotted to him has been taken away by the impugned order: Rather the same has been conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents. The allotment of the petitioner with regard to Khasra Nos. 941, 942, 943, 944, 947, 949, 950, 951 and 952 shall, therefore. stand. As regards the ether land, the order of the Additional, Settlement Commissioner dividing the same rateably between the parties to this case is unexceptionable for nobody could lay a preferential claim. The] Settlement Authority, therefore, acted equitably and justly in dividing the same between them. The impugned order is also in accordance with the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Shafi v. C. S. & R. C. (1968 S C M R 121) condoning equitable distribution. This petition, therefore, has no merit and shall stand disposed of without any order as to costs. K. M. A Appeal dismissed.