1984 PLP 220 (MLD)

Ss.10 & 11--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9--Mukhbari application--Order of cancellation of land depriving vendees of land purchased by them well over twenty years ago--Order not appearing to have been passed on any independent evidence--Matter calling for a deeper probe and a more concentrated application of mind by Tribunal below--Case remanded to Authorities for its entrustment to some officer notified under S.2 of Act XIV of 1975 to make fresh enquiry into Mukhbari application--Impugned order to extent of cancellation of land held by petitioners declared to have been passed without lawful authority. Ch.Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioners. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1984. The land in dispute is situated in village Chak Santhal Tehsil and District Sialkot. It was allotted to one Mat. Fazal Bibi against her entitlement, which she inherited from her father namely Ali Muhammad. Apart from Mst.Fazal Bibi, Ali Muhammad deceased, is, survived by three sons namely Muhammad Sharif, Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Muhammad. He was a claimant displaced persons and mutation regarding his inheritance, was sanctioned in favour of his three sons and daughter on 24-11-1952. The land in question, was, purchased by the petitioners partly from the allottees directly and partly acquired from the vendees from her. On 25-10-1969 one Khurshid Anwar, moved a Mukhbari application, before the Incharge Inspection Team Gujranwala, in which it was alleged that Muhammad Sharif and Ali Muhammad and others, obtained bogus and double allotments of land. This application was enquired into by the Additional Settlement Commissioner with powers as a Chief Settlement Commissioner. Mst. Fazal Bibi and the petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard. Under order, dated 20-11-1983 impugned through this writ petition, Mst. Fazal Bibi's allotment in village Santhal, alongwith some other land, having been found in excess of her entitlement, was, cancelled.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is evident from the impugned order, that before the authorities below, Mst. Fazal Bibi has been making contradictory statements. The basis which primarily prevailed with the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, in cancelling the allotment in question, was, that she disowned the allotment in village Santhal. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that Mst. Fazal Bibi, through her brother and attorney, Ghulam Rasool got the land allotted in village Santhal on 21-6-1962 and later on disposed it of. Subsequently, she procured the allotment in village Rahimpur and other places. It was submitted, that as the land of village Santhal had been sold away by her, she dishonestly denied before the Settlement Authorities, to have obtained any allotment in the said village and thus, tried to save her other allotment, which was later in time. In the submission of the petitioners' learned counsel, she held entitlement to the extent of 712 Produce Index Units and the allotment in village Santhal, fell within her entitlement and, therefore, the subsequent allotments got by her, after exhausting her verified claim in Chak Santhal, were liable to be cancelled. It was also urged that since the name of Mst. Fazal Bibi was not mentioned in the Mukhbari application, the entire proceedings conducted against her or for that matter the petitioners, after the repeal of the evacuee laws were without lawful authority.

3. Dealing with the last contention first, it cannot be denied that the name of Ali Muhammad from whom Mst. Fazal Bibi drove entitlement was included in the Mukhbari application. It transpired during the enquiry that under the mutation dated 24-11-1952, she inherited from her father 1339 P.I.U. whereas as per record maintained by the Central Record Office, she was entitled to 712 P.I.U. only. The purpose of Mukhbari application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, was, to lay information before the authorities concerned as to the obtaining of allotment by fraud, false representation and A without a valid entitlement. In my opinion the application in question Annexure: 'F' satisfies requirements of law. Mst. Fazal Bibi did not have any entitlement of her own and acquired the same from her father, whose name figures in the Mukhbari application. In these circumstances, the ill-gotton gain cannot be allowed to be retained on the strength of technicalities.

4. I have seen the copy of R.L.11 register for the village Santhal (Annexure: 'J/1') which shows that her attorney Ghulam Rasool appeared before the Settlement authorities and accepted the proposal. It is not disputed that the land in village Rahimpur was allotted subsequent to the allotment in village Santhal. The impugned order does not indicate that except the allottee's self-serving statement, disowning the allotment in Chak Santhal which in view of her conflicting versions, robbed away her trustworthiness, there was any independent evidence before the learned Settlement Commissioner for depriving the vendees of the land purchased by them, well over 20 years ago. I am of the view that the matter in issue calls for a deeper probe and a more concentrated application of mind by the Tribunal below. The case, therefore, shall have to be remanded to the Settlement authorities for a fresh enquiry. The learned counsel appearing for the Department, has no serious objection to the holding of such an enquiry.

5. This writ petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order to the extent of cancellation of the land in Chak Santhal held by the petitioners, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The case is remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing), for its entrustment to some officer notified under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975 who shall hold a fresh enquiry into the Mukhbari application on the point as to whether or not Mst. Fazal Bibi really obtained the allotment in Chak Santhal. If the allotment in this village is found to have been procured by her, prior in time, as compared with other allotments, it shall not be disturbed to the extent it falls within her entitlement, and the Department shall be at liberty to proceed against her other allotments, in accordance with law. However, if it is established that she did not get any allotment in Chak Santhal the impugned order shall hold the field. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M . Y . H . Petition accepted.