1998 PLP 462 (SCMR)

MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.

Leave to appeal is sought for challenging the judgment dated 3-5-1993 delivered by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.460-R of 1978.

2. Admittedly respondents 1 and 2, namely, Mehru and Ramzan alias Rehmu were proposed transferees of property in litigation situated in Mauza Vehniwal, Tehsil Layyah, District Muzaffargarh against their verified claims. Such proposal was not confirmed till 25-6-1973 when a memorandum was issued by the Settlement Authorities to the effect that all the proposals of evacuee agricultural lands which had not yet been confirmed by then shall be treated as cancelled. Exact wording of the said memorandum reads as follows:-- "In pursuance of the decision of the Federal Government of Pakistan, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, has ordered that the allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land against verified claim/entitlement certificates be stopped with immediate effect. It is, therefore, requested that all the Assistant Commissioners/Extra Assistant Settlement Officers, Extra-Assistant Colonization Officers, and all others concerned may please be directed immediately not to make further allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land against any claim/entitlement certificates. Proposals already made and not confirmed will also stand cancelled." Subsequently the property in litigation was put to auction on 13-12-1973 and the same was purchased by petitioner Ahmed Bakhsh and respondent No.9 Haji Ghulam Raoui. In the circumstances, respondents Nos.1 and 2 file Writ Petition No.460-R of 1978, which was accepted under the impugned order and auction of the land in litigation in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.9 was declared to be without lawful Authority and of no legal affect. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents Nos. l and 2 had remained unsuccessful in a previous civil suit and hence their writ petition was not tenable in law. It was also argued that the land in question, was not available for its transfer to be confirmed in names of respondents 1 and 2 because its possession had already been delivered to auction-purchasers. If the land in litigation was proposed by the Settlement Authorities in names of respondents 1 and 2, it was again the duty of the Settlement Authorities to confirm or decline to confirm such proposal. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault of them. The only circumstances going against respondents 1 and 2 was issue of office memorandum dated 25-6-1973 by the Settlement Authorities. Such office memorandum was challenged in the case of Mst. Inayat Bibi v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1978 Lah. 252) where it was declared to be without lawful authority. Therefore, no impediment existed in way of the Settlement Authorities in confirming the proposal in favour of respondents Nos. l and

2. The High Court has rightly adopted the view taken in the case of Mst. Inayat Bibi (PLD 1978 Lah. 252) that it is statutory duty of the Settlement Authorities to pass formal order to hand over possession of land, which has been earlier proposed in favour of a claimant, after the expiry of fifteen days' period as per para.68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme.

4. The High Court appears to have taken correct view and no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal and the petition stands dismissed. A.A./A-1273/S Leave refused