1982 PLP 958 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal is sought from judg ment dated 24th November, 1976, of the Lahore High Court, whereby four writ petitions filed by respondent No. 1, relating to the disposal of an evacuee property were allowed, declaring the allotments of the land in dispute to the petitioners as void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The property, it is not denied, is evacuee. The Central Government had, under section 12(3)(6) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 (XV of 1949), accorded sanction to the acquisition of the land fur respondent No. 1 on 26‑5‑1954. The proceedings for acquisi tion, accordingly, resulted it a assessment of compensation with the Custodian of Evacuee Property Notwithstanding the said action of the Central Govern ment and acquisition proceedings, the land in question was allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners in 1961. This allotment which, accord ing to the petitioners, had matured into settlement tinder the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1951, was set aside by the High Court through the impugned judgment, therefore, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has raised two‑fold contentions, firstly, that the sanction for acquisition by the Central Government tinder the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, was subject to certain directions and because the said directions have not been carried out, therefore, the acquisition proceedings could not effect the petitioner's allotment/settlement; and, secondly, that the property had gone to the compensation pool for settlement of the displaced persons even before the Central Government had accorded sanction for acquisition, therefore, the petitioner's allotment made in 1961 could not be disturbed. It has not been disputed that the relevant notification issued under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, whereby a compensation pool was created, excluded from its operation the land for the acquisition or sale of which sanction of the Central Government under the Administration of Evacuee Property laws had already been accorded before the date of the notification. If the relevant sanction of the Central Government in this case was accorded in 1954, much before the notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, then the land in dispute did not form part of the compensation pool, thus could not be made the subject‑matter of allotment/settlement under the said Act. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel in this behalf. With regard to the other contention that the directions of the Central Government, which were not part of the sanction accorded for acquisition, have not been complied with, the learned counsel himself is not sure whether, in reality, they have not been complied with now. He has stated that his clients have not contacted him, therefore, he is not aware of the latest position. Be that as it may, the land in question not being a part of compensation pool at the relevant time when the alleged allotment/settlement, which is the basis of the petitioner's case was made, no legitimate grievance can be made by them against the decision of the High Court. However, the learned Single Judge in the High Court having made certain remarks in the concluding part of the impugned judgment which might favour the petitioners in getting alternate land, we do not consider it necessary to make any comment on this aspect of the matter. There is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.