1989SCMR128 (PLP)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is an appeal by leave from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑12‑1967, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant and one Muhammad Din (now not before us) on migration from India in 1947 took up residence by constructing pacca houses on two building sites measuring 6 marlas and 3 marlas, respectively, situate in Killa No.4, Square No. 90, in Chak No. 220/R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad. The appellant submitted a form for the transfer of the building site under paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. When this form was being considered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned, Mst. Shaukat Begum, from whom respondent No. 2 had purchased her rights in the land allotted to her as agricultural land, also moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner stating therein that the plot in dispute had already been transferred to her as agricultural land, and the occupation of the appellant being unauthorized his form be rejected. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner considering the case of the rival claimants, vide his order dated 5‑7‑1963, held that the land in question was agricultural one and the same could not be transferred as building site and thus rejected the form submitted by the appellant. The appellant succeeded in getting the above order reversed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, who, on 31‑8‑1963, while accepting the appeal set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and ordered the transfer of the plot to the appellant. It was now respondent No. 2 who filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. Faisalabad, which was accepted on 1.7‑6‑1967 and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed through the impugned order.

3. Leave in this case was granted to examine the correctness of the orders of the two Settlement Authorities, i.e., the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and A the Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, dated 5‑7‑1903 and 17‑6‑1907, and that of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in refusing the transfer of the plot in dispute as a building site.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant in detail and perusal of the record the view that has been formed by us is that the orders of the Settlement Authorities and that of the learned Single Judge need no interference.

5. Land as defined in section 2(3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is: "Land' means evacuee property consisting of land held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture including gardens, unserveyed land and trees or buildings and other structures standing thereon and includes all rights of evacuee in such land, but does not include:‑‑ (a) Property as defined in sub‑clause (b) of Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (Ill of 1956), or in sub‑clause (d) thereof or (b) Such evacuee land as may be declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a building site." It was conceded before the High Court and also before us that the deadline for determining the character of the property as agricultural or otherwise is 14th August 1947. In this case the question that the land in dispute is agricultural land stands determined during the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, in the very presence of the appellant where sufficient unrebutted material was brought on the record that in the year 1947 the suit land was an agricultural land and it remained as such when the same alongwith other land was properly and legally transferred to a claimant displaced person who has now been succeeded by respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on annexures `D' and `E', contended that it was the evacuee owner who in the year 1935 and 1948 had in fact converted the suit property as residential property and had sold several contiguous plots to different people, but it is of no avail to him because these documents were never produced before the Settlement Authorities and it was for the first time that the same were produced in the High Court and were kept out of consideration and rightly so. Similarly annexures `F', `G' and `I' which relate to the transfer of agricultural land as ubran building site to Syed Muhammad Amin are also of no assistance to him in that the character of that land from agricultural to urban building site was changed by the Government as provided for under the law whereas in the case in hand no such order has been passed.

6. The view, therefore, that we take in the matter is that the appellant has not been able to make out any case. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. M.Y.H./A‑.345/S Appeal dismissed.