1989 PLP 4590 (MLD)

This petition is directed against the orders dated 20‑8‑1975 and 18‑8‑1975 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (L)Addl: Commissioner (Revenue), Multan and Additional Deputy Commissioner (Con)/Addl: Settlement Commissioner (L), Multan, respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed claim bearing No. 5586 for the verification of land owned and obtained by him in Farid Kot. The claim was verified by the Central Record Room and farde‑haqiat issued to him for 181 produce index units. His entitlement was duly entered at Khata No. 3 of R.L. II of Chak No. 259/EB. Originally land against 156 P.1. Units at the above Khata was proposed and confirmed in the petitioner's name and subsequently land against 20 P.I.Units was confirmed in his name at the same Khata on 22‑12‑1954. Thus the petitioner was allotted land to the extent of 176 P.I. Units at Khata No.

3. The petitioner filed another claim bearing No. 6803 in his capacity as the legal heir of Muhammad son of Ahmad, a displaced person from Farid Kot State. That claim was also duly verified and fard‑e‑haqiat for 146 P.I. Unit was issued to the petitioner. 1t may also be mentioned that according to mutation of inheritance of Muhammad son of Ahmad the petitioner was entitled to inherit 1/4th share of the estate abandoned by said Muhammad in India. Thus the petitioner was entitled to get land against 73 P.I. Units as heir of Muhammad.

3. On a Mukhbari application the Addl: Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner had obtained excess allotment of land to the extent of 76 P.I.Units vide his order 18‑8‑1975. He further noted that out of the petitioner's entitlement 54 units had not yet been satisfied. In the operative part of order he held that land allotted against 76 excess units was liable to cancellation. He, however, noted that the petitioner was not guilty of making any mis‑statement or fraud and that in case the petitioner's units were pending then 76 units could be adjusted against his entitlement. The petitioner's revision petition against the order passed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 1 vide order dated 20‑8‑1975.

4. The learned counsel for the parties argued the case and ultimately Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Qaisarani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent offered that the petitioner may not be allowed adjustment of the kind against the pending units but he may purchase the said units at the rate of Rs. 100 per P.I.Unit and if the payment at the said rate was made then the land allotted against the said 76 units may be allowed to remain with petitioner. The offer was accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I may also add here that on 17 -12‑1988 the statement of Muhammad Nazir, Soul. merit Clerk, D.C. office was recorded. He was directed to bring the original Register R.L.II pertaining to Chak No. 256/EB, tehsil Burewala to ascertain as to whether any entry regarding cancellation of the excess land from the name of the petitioner had been made or not. He stated with reference to the original record that no such entry had yet been made and that the land had not been allotted to any other person including the Mukhbar.

5. In this view of the matter the impugned order in so far as it relates to the cancellation of 76 units is set aside and the writ petition is allowed in terms of the compromise reached between the parties through their learned counsel. The petitioner shall be entitled to retain the land already allotted to him against 76 excess units provided he makes payment to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 100 per P.I. Unit. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./C‑53/L Order accordingly.