1989 PLP 3981 (MLD)

Muhammad Khalid AM for Respondents Nos. 2 to

6. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1989. This constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 24‑8‑1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.)/Settlement Commissioner cancelling the allotment obtained by Iqbal Shah respondent in village Abdul Hakeem. The petitioners are vendees of the disputed land from Iqbal Shah, respondent No. 8, who claims to be entitled to transfer of land against 2110 P.I.Us. (urban claim). The claim of Iqbal Shah, respondent No. 8, was verified on 24‑6‑1967 for 1620 P.I.Us. including 382 P.I.Us. of garden area. He also claims 490 P.I.Us. inherited from his mother, Mst. Fayyaz Begum.

2. Land equal to 375 produce index units was allotted to Iqbal Shah, respondent No. 8, on 10‑1‑1962 in village Chela Wayne Tehsil Hasilpu2 District Bahawalpur. Land equal to 382 P.I.Us. for garden area was allotted to him on 16 7‑1963 in Kot Khalifa Tehsil Ahmadpur Sharqia District Bahawalpur. Thereafter, the land was allotted to him equal to 1496 P.I.Us. on 26‑7‑1968 m village Abdul Hakeem district Multan. The petitioners purchased the land allotted to respondent No. 8 in village Abdul Hakeem for a sum of Rs. 70,000 vide Mutation No. 314 attested on 5‑6‑1971. The petitioners further alienated a portion of the said land to respondent No. 7 on 24‑8‑1976.

3. On a mukhbari application filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 6, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Cons.)/Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan Division, Multan, cancelled the allotment from the name of Iqbal Shah, respondent No. 8, in village Abdul Hakeem. He held that his claim was fully satisfied in Bahawalpur and that he was not entitled to allotment in village Abdul Hakeem.

4. Chaudhry Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners as vendees were entitled to a hearing before passing of the impugned order. In this connection he placed reliance on Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah and 16 others v. Ch. Muhammad Hussain and another (PLD 1971 Lah. 108) and D.S.C. and another v. Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah and others (1982 S C M R 638). He further submitted that the case was essentially one of miscalculation because the Settlement Commissioner had erroneously mentioned that respondent No. 8 had obtained allotment of 1329 P.I.Us. at Kot Khalifa. In fact, it was a joint allotment in which respondent No. 8 was merely allotted garden area against his entitlement of 382 P.I.Us. However, respondent No. 8 had inherited 490 P.I.Us. from his mother, Mst: Fayyaz Begum and was also entitled to 10 per cent beshi under the law. Thus, respondent No. 8 had not obtained land in excess of his legal entitlement. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 6 conceded that the impugned order suffered from a factual error regarding the allotment in Kot Khalifa. They admitted that out of the joint allotment of 1329 P.I.Us. (made to Iqbal Shah, his sister Mst. Arshia Begum and mother Mst. Fayyaz Begum) Iqbal Shah was allotted only garden area against this entitlement of 382 P.I.Us. The rest of allotment was made in the name of other claimants and could not be reckoned in the entitlement of Iqbal Shah. They, however, submitted that there was nothing to show that respondent No. 8 had inherited 490 P.I.Us from his mother Mst. Fayyaz Begum.

5. The vendees are entitled to a hearing as urged by the learned 'counsel for the petitioners but the impugned order reveals that they were, in fact, heard by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.)/Settlement Commissioner (Lands) before passing the impugned order. However, the impugned order suffers from misreading of the material on the record and cannot be sustained. Admittedly, Iqbal Shah, respondent No. 8 was allotted only 382 P.LUs in Kot Khalifa for garden area. The factual position is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. This is also clear from the record that the m6ther of Iqbal Shah was allotted land in her own right against her entitlement and after her death, respondent No. 8 inherited her entitlement in village Kot Khalifa.

6. I, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the notified Officer, Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, to decide the case afresh in the light of the law and the observations made above. The parties concerned shall be at liberty to place relevant material/documents before the notified Officer in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the notified Officer on 27‑5‑1989. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1615/L Petition allowed.