1987 PLP 2015 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a purchaser of land allotted to an informer, challenges the decision of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑4‑1982 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him against the refusal of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to upset the allotment of that land earlier to Ahmad Din was dismissed.

2. Ahmad Din was allotted the disputed land on 30‑10‑1964 against his verified entitlement. He sold the land to Muhammad Amin on 9‑4‑1965. Information was laid against this allotment by one Ahmad Khan Jee and the allotment was set aside on 26‑11‑1969 and the resumed land was allotted to this informer, who in turn sold it to the petitioner on 3‑10‑1970. A constitutional petition (W.P. 1054‑R of 1974) was filed by Muhammad Amin which succeeded on 27‑6‑1977 and the civil petition for leave to appeal against it (C.P. 552/1977) also failed on 11‑6‑1979. A reference to the decision of the High Court and that of this Court bears it out that the writ petitioner Muhammad Amin was held to be a bona fide purchaser for value and among other reasons this was the reason given for not interfering with the allotment of Ahmad Din. However, the proceedings were remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for re‑examining the other aspects of the case. This aspect appears fully from the following observations of this Court:‑ "...We respectfully agree with the learned High Court that in purchasing the land in question Muhammad Amin had acted on the basis of public record i.e. the RL‑I1, showing the allotment in favour of Ahmad Din respondent. Reposing faith in the said record he purchased the land for a sum of Rs.35,C00 for which a mutation was duly sanctioned by the Assistant Collector in a Jalsa‑e‑Aam. He subsequently invested labour as well as money in installing a tube-well and improving the land. A bona fide purchase for value on the basis of the record is certainly entitled to protection of his rights by law. The case has, therefore, been rightly remanded by the High Court to the Settlement Commissioner Lahore Division for re‑hearing and fresh decision."

3. On such re‑hearing after remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner re‑examined the question and with regard to the entitlement and the genuineness of the allotment held as follows:‑ ". . . There was nothing wrong with the transfer of units from village Bhoja Chak of Sialkot to Gujranwala. There is a note about the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) order dated 30‑9‑1964 in this regard and copies of Robkars No. 577/Norowal Coshwara 27 including Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) order dated 29‑1‑1964 allowing transfer of units from Bhoja Chak of Sialkot to Gujranwala district, have also been attached with the file. Whether the revised was available or not is immaterial because Ahmad Din was entitled to an allotment of land upto 10175 P.I. Units. He was allotted land to the extent of 3653 units in Sialkot and 3319 units in village Thabal. The total comes to 6972 units which is far less than his entitlement."

4. Keeping in view the antecedent litigation between the parties and the finding so recorded by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the High Court has refused to interfere and dismissed the constitutional petition in limine.

5. Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the examination of the factual aspect of the entitlement of Ahmad Din was rather a superficial at the hands of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the earlier observations protecting the purchase made by Muhammad Din could not be of any avail as a fresh inquiry had been ordered and that inquiry was under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It should have been conducted and concluded with thoroughness and all the material on the record should have been examined.

6. The conduct of the allottee Ahmad Din had already been noticed by the High Court and this Court in its judgment. Not much can be made out of it by the petitioner for he stands condemned on his own words. A factual inquiry was required to be undertaken by the designated authority having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. The conclusion was adverse to the petitioner. The records placed before us do show a conflict but it is not within our domain nor within the purview of the proceedings taken to determine in this Court or in the High Court as it is a factual controversy. A decision has been given and we do not find that on facts it is a decision which requires interference because the view taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner could in fact be taken as he had access to all the original record that was the subject‑matter of examination and reference.

7. In view of the history of the litigation, the observations made by the Superior Courts and the decision given on facts by the designated Chief Settlement Commissioner, we do not consider this to be a fit case for leave to appeal. Hence leave is refused. S.Q./M‑197/S ‑‑‑‑‑ Leave refused.