1970 PLP 534 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑In this case the dispute is about Paniwala garden in village Karna, Tehsil and District Bahawal pur, measuring 12 Acres, 3 kanals and 11 marlas anld Mishanwala garden in village Bhindar, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur, measuring 8 Acres, 4 kanals and 12 marlas. On the 1st July 1969, Paniwala garden was allotted to the petitioner and on the 29th April 1969, Mishanwala garden was allotted to Mst. Mauziz Jehan Begum, the sister of the petitioner. The petitioner and his sister are displaced persons from District Muradabad and had verified claim of 21732 Produce Index Units out of which 3672 Produce Index Units were exclusively for gardens. Subsequently, according to M. R. V., the entitlement of the petitioner was reduced to 3923 units including 633 units of garden. On the promulga tion of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, the petitioner and his sister surrendered the garden as excess area. The sister of the petitioner refused to purchase the area which had been allotted to her. The petitioner, however, offered not only to purchase his own excess area but also of his sister. On the 16th June 1969, the petitioner was informed that as the allotment in his favour was not confirmed he was not entitled to purchase the surrendered land. He was further informed that he has no verified claim of any urban garden and was, there fore, not entitled to the garden which was temporarily allotted to him. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 946 of 1969. A Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, by order dated the 16th December 1969, dismissed it. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition, Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was not confirmed because of the inaction on the part of the Department. He has submitted his verified claim and, therefore, the allotment should have been confirmed in his favour. That may be so, the fact however, remains that under paragraph 8 of the Regulation, only confirmed allotments which were in excess of the petitioner's entitlement could be surrendered and the area which was not duly confirmed but had only been proposed for allotment to the claimants was to revert to the compensation pool. This is quite clear from the Circular Memorandum No. 336‑62‑3245‑R (P) dated the 12th April 1962. In the present case, the petitioner's allotment was not confirmed and he was, therefore, not entitled to take advantage of para. 8 of Martial Law Regulation No.

89. Moreover, the petitioner has no verified claim for urban garden and for this reason also he was not entitled to the transfer of the garden in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain instructions issued by the Department under which an urban garden can be transferred in lieu of rural claim. But this is only with the permission of the Settlement authorities. No such permission was obtained by the petitioner in this case. So far as the garden allotted to the sister of the petitioner is concerned, he is not entitled to its transfer. We are satisfied the Department, in this case, has acted in accordance with law. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed. Leave refused.