1986 PLP 1035 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.1. Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Respondent

2. Date of hearing: 19th November 1985. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 214‑R of 1976, Criminal Original No. 77‑W‑76, arising there from, and Writ Petition No. 1419‑R‑1976, as these are interconnected matters.

2. The Constitutional petitions challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, dated 31‑1‑1976, by which allotment to the extent of 1146 P.I.Us. was maintained in favour of the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest in the first petition, Dr. Sharaf‑ud‑Din, but the officer did not allow the allotment of 46 and 58 Units made in the name of his son and nephew, on the ground that they were not the appellants, which, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was incorrect and a reference is made to the Grounds of Appeal, Annexure (G) to the petition. The major part of allotment has been allowed on the ground that the claimant I was entitled to preference being an allottee of the estate, whereas, the respondent No.2 was not so.

3. The case of the respondent No.2, who has also filed an independent petition, i.e. the second Constitutional Petition (W.P. No. 1419‑R‑76), is firstly that the petitioners' claim verified as rural has been cancelled and consequently allotment too. The area was then allotted to the respondent No.2. The verification of the petitioners' claim as urban was sent to District Lahore and it had not reached the estate in question until much later after allotment in favour of the respondent No.2. Consequently, the respondent No.2 was entitled to retain the entire allotment and the impugned order is illegal to the extent that it only allows a small allotment and disallows the major part of it. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has also referred to Annexure (A) filed with the Constitutional Petition of the respondent No.2 bearing No. 1419‑R‑76, which is a Robkar from the Central Record Office showing that the verification of U . R . V . of Doctor Sharaf‑ud‑Din dated 14‑11‑1959 had been, cancelled and a new entitlement certificate issued showing 361 P.I.Us. The original was for 1481 P.I:Us.

4. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department has submitted that the petitioners in the first petition can ask for allotment to the extent of their verified claim and no, more no less.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first petition has submitted that a Robkar filed by the respondent No.2 along with the Writ Petition is a forged document and he has referred to a Certificate Annexure (R/1).

6. The proper thing to do is to find out as to how much was the entitlement of the petitioners. To the extent thereof, they are entitled to remain in peace and retain land initially allotted to them on verification of their claim by the Central Record Office as rural, which has since been re‑verified as urban. Whatever the nature of the claim may be, settled refugee could not be disturbed without properly adjusting his claim. Consequently, the hurried cancellation of the allotment of the petitioners from the estate in question was illegal. However, if the petitioners have got satisfaction of their full claim re‑verified in other estates and in this estate to the extent of their entitlement, they would be entitled to retain the land. More than that, they have n right to and if the land stands allotted in their name more than their entitlement, they shall obviously have to leave that and since the entire A land had earlier been allotted in favour of the respondent No.2, the latter would be entitled to retain the allotment of the land to the extent that it becomes available after full satisfaction of the claim o the petitioners. In order to call for the record from the Central Record Office and to see as to how much is the entitlement of the petitioners and then to see its adjustment, the matter is remitted to the learned Notified Officer, Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Officer of 14‑12‑1985, so as to avoid delay in service of the parties, on which date the learned Officer shall pass further orders as he would deem fit. The two Constitutional Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. Sine, the cases have been remanded no action is called for in the Criminal Original. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. Petitions allowed.