1994 PLP 1951 (MLD)

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1397-R/1978, 1398/R/77, 175/R/78, 174/R/78, 10/R/78, 11/R/78, 1607/R/77, 1608/R/77, 1609/R/1977, 644/R/1980 and 386/R/1980 inasmuch as all the petitions involve common question of law.

2. Facts of the case out of which each writ petition has arisen are as follows:

(1) W.P. No. 1397-R/1977: Land measuring 190 Kanals and 15 Marlas was allotted to one Murad Khan a refugee at Khata No. 275 of Register R.L. 11 (Annexure-A) on 25-3-1964. This land was subsequently purchased by the petitioner. (2) W.P. No. 1398-R/1977. Land measuring 834 Kanals 17 Marlas and 813 Kanals and 15 Marlas of District Sheikhpura was allotted to one Muhammad Abdul Qayyum son of Ali Muhammad a refugee at Khata No. 268 of Register R.L.

11. Out of this land, Khasra No. 7, 115-2, 3, 4 and 5 was purchased by the petitioner vide order 6-7-1993. (3) W.P. No.174-R/1978: Land measuring 1517 Kanals, 1324 Kanals 16 Marlas of District Sheikhpura was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 14-2-1963. (4) W.P. No.175-R/1978: Land measuring 517 Acres, 2 Kanals 17 Marlas was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner sometime in the year 1963. (5) W.P. No.10-R/1978: Landed property was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 24-11-1964. (6) W.P. No.11-R/1978: Land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 23-5-1964. (7) W.P. No.1607-R/1977: Landed property situated in District Sheikhupura was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 29-12-1964. (8) W.P. No.1608-R/1977: Landed property was allotted to the petitioner on 9-12-1962. (9) W.P. No.1609-R/1977: Landed property was allotted to the petitioner on 27-6-1966. (10) W.P. No.386-R/1980: The land is dispute was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of1the petitioner on 19-6-1969. (11) W.P. No.644-R/1980: Land measuring 144 Kanals, 10 Marlas of District Sheikhupura was allotted to the petitioners on 19-6-1969. All the allotments referred to above were cancelled by the respondent Settlement Commissioner on the basis of an application filed by the respondent Forest Department under the provisions of section 10/11 of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 vide orders which have been impugned in all the writ petitions referred to above. The reasons which found favour with the learned Settlement Authority for directing the cancellation of the land are that the land in question had been reserved for the purpose of the Forest Department and was purchased at the rate of Rs.14 per unit for the purpose of the forest vide Letter No.T.R./2272/65/3622, dated 16-7-1965 and further that the Custodian Evacuee Property has already transferred the land in question to the Forest Department vide Letter No.CEP-1824251-10, dated 11-2-1948 and that an information has been conveyed to the Revenue Department, vide Letter No. R.D.K.-65/795, dated 27-2-1965 that this land cannot be allotted to any body . These orders have been challenged in all the writ petitions.

3. In support of writ petition mentioned at S. Nos. 1 to 9 Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, has argued that the allotment in favour of the petitioners having been finalized prior to 27-2-1965 hence as held in case of Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Mahboob Shah (1991 SCMR 1426), the orders of cancellation thereof are illegal and are without lawful authority inasmuch as the petitioners are still in possession of the land in question as allottees and that it has never been in possession of the Forest Department. Mian Munawar Hussain, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 384/R/1980 and has appeared as a counsel for the respondent in Writ Petition No.644-R-1980. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.644-R-1980. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, learned Additional A.-G. and Mr. Irfan Qadir, learned Additional A.-G. Punjab have appeared on behalf of the Forest Department and Mirza Hamill All, Advccate has appeared on behalf of the Settlement Authorities. Minn Munawar Hussain, Advocate, appearing in support of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 386-R-1980 has argued that even the allotment made after 27-2-1965 will be saved inasmuch as the letters on the basis whereof the allotment has been cancelled are not lawful. In Writ Petition No. 644-R-1980 similar contention has been raised in the Memorandum of the writ petition. Both the learned Law Officers who have appeared on behalf of the Forest Department and the learned Standing Counsel for the Settlement Department, have conceded that in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment referred to supra all the allotments which have been made and were finalized prior to 27-2-1965 could not have been cancelled but the allotment which were made thereafter are not maintainable and have been validly cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not been able. to controvert the factum and date of finalization of the allotments referred to above and also possession of the petitioner in each case.

4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above, which is fully applicable to the facts of the cases in hand. Hence respectfully following the same, I accept Writ Petitions Nos. 1397/1398/1607/1608-R/1977, Writ Petitions Nos.10, 11, 174 and 175-R of 1978 and declare that the orders of cancellation of allotment A impugned in the said writ petitions are illegal, without lawful authority and the same therefore are set aside with the result that the allotment so cancelled shall be restored. Writ Petition No. 1609-R/1977, Writ Petition No. 386-R/1980 and Writ Petition No. 644/R/1980 are dismissed on the basis of the ratio of the same judgment inasmuch as the dates of allotments in these writ petitions are after 27-2-1965 as these allotments cannot be maintained' and hence have been cancelled in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. AA./M-1668/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.