1989 PLP 1446 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners feel aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30‑1‑1989 where by the allotment of land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas in Khasra No.390/1 in village Dhoke Tahlian Qasbati, Rawalpindi was held to be a mere forgery and the refusal of the Revenue Authorities to incorporate it in the annual revenue record, was upheld. They seek leave to appeal.

2. The petitioners' case before the Revenue Authorities was that being a refugee from non‑agreed area, verified claim of 222 PIUs was received after verification part of which i.e. 132 PIUs was settled and confirmed in a different village while the balance of 90 PIUs was adjusted against land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas out of Khasara No.390 which was given No.390/1. The allotment is said to have taken place in 1960. Earlier to it, acquisition proceedings had been started which had ended in an Award, dated 22nd of February, 1959 but that Award excluded an area of 223 kanals 18 marlas because it was evacuee property and the sanction of the Central Government had not been till then received in respect of it. The sanction ultimately came in 1971. The sanction required was for 262 kanals 3 marlas but it was found that only 255 kanals 8 marlas were till then unallotted. Sanction was, however, accorded in respect of 223 kanals 18 marlas, and one of the conditions attaching to the sanction was that the "land is not transferable to any person under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act." The schedule included Khasra No.390 measuring 9 kanals 14 marlas. 3 The petitioners approached the Collector for giving effect to their allotment in respect of Khasra No.390/1 in the Jamabandi. The Collector refused. On appeal the Additional Commissioner Revenue allowed the claim on 28‑3‑1982. The Board of Revenue by an instruction relatable to the case held that the Revenue Authorities had become functus officio as the land had been transferred to the Health Department. The petitioners challenged the belated sanction for acquisition in 1971 and this directive of the Board of Revenue.

4. The High Court held the allotment itself to be irregular and the Entitlement Certificate to be mere forgery.

5. Mr. Samad Mehmood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that part of the claim of the petitioners had been settled elsewhere which allotment remains intact. It cannot, therefore, be held that the Entitlement Certificate was a forgery. As regards the allotment itself, it is stated that the RL‑II kept by the Settlement Authorities itself is not available, therefore, necessarily they had to rely on such secondary evidence as was available. The Additional Commissioner Revenue did exactly that and upheld the claim of the petitioners. This finding of fact has not been at all reversed on the factual plane and the High Court should not have done it while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. Finally it is contended that the view taken by the Board of Revenue and the High Court on the legal plane is erroneous. The allotments having been made in 1960, suffered from no taint of illegality and could not be affected by the acquisitions which had been concluded earlier because at that time the required sanction of the Custodian or the Central Government was withheld.

6. We find that these contentions do require fuller examination for which leave to appeal is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal to be heard on the present record at an early date with liberty to the parties to file A additional documents. No interim relief is being granted as even if the appellants succeed, they would be entitled to monetary compensation on the property being acquired. A.A./G‑174/S Leave granted.