1969 PLP 327 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 18th April 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner purchased 48 kanals and 3 marlas of land from respondent, Saghirul Hassan, in village No. 68/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, by two registered deeds executed on the 12th May and 11th July 1962, respectively. The said Saghirul Hassan had obtained allotment of these lands on the basis of a claim filed by him for the lands left in Patiala State by his grandfather, Mazharul Hassan, on the 8th April 1952. The lands were, subsequently, confirmed in his name on the 3rd September 1952. In 1961, however, it was reported by an informer that in respect of the same lands of the said Mazharul Hassan some other persons had also obtained allotments for his entire claim in village Daska in the district of Sialkot, claiming to be heirs of the said Mazharul Hassan. Upon verification of this information the Deputy Rehabilita tion Commissioner, Lyallpur, on the 28th November 1961, ordered that only half of the property of the said Mazharul Hassan should remain with his heirs in Lyallpur District and the remaining half should be cancelled. Further, that if the sisters of the said Saghirul Hassan wished to keep the allotment in Daska then further proportionate deductions should be made in the allotments in Jaranwala and the excess area would go to the informers. The sisters of Saghirul Hassan decided to retain their allotments in Daska. Accordingly, on the 8th November, 1963, the Chairman Allotment Committee implemented the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated the 28th November 1961. A new RL‑II was prepared and the allotment of Saghirul Hassan in Jaranwala was reduced to I/4th share. In this 1/4th share he should have got 41 kanals and 1 marla of land but the Chairman Allotment Committee gave him only 26 kanals and 13 marlas. This reduction took place as a result of a change in tile classifica tion of L4 kanals and 18 marlas of land. The Chairman, it appears, found the special Jamabandi for the year 1946‑47 to be suspicious as there were interpolations in it. He, accordingly fixed the classification of the land on the basis of the entries contained in the earlier Jamabandi for the year 1944 and the classification given in the RL‑11 and the Khasra Girdawaris for the years 1949 to 1952. The petitioner did not challenge the reduction made in the share of Saghirul Hassan and the cancellation of the excess area as a result of the discovery of the double allotment but contested the further reduction on the ground that the classification bad been wrongly made. According to the petitioner, it could only have been made on the basis of the special Jamabandi of 1946‑47, because, after the Inter‑Dominion Agreement made between the Governments of India and Pakistan, this provision had teen incorporated in the Rehabilitation Scheme itself. He tried, therefore, to contest the validity of the order of the Chairman Allotment Committee, both in appeal and revision, before the higher rehabilitation authorities but without any success. Ultimately, on the 8th February 1967, he filed a second revision in the High Court of West Pakistan. This was, subsequently, converted into a writ petition, but was dismissed in limine, on the 10th September 1968, by a learned Single Judge. A Letters Patent appeal from that was also dismissed in limine on the 29th October 1968. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court and it is again contended on his behalf that the classification has been made illegally and upon irrelevant considerations. It is, no doubt, true that under paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme of 1956, the Rehabilitation authorities are required to act on the basis of this special Jamabandi of 1946‑47 but in the present case since that Jamabandi was itself found to be unreliable by reason of the interpolations therein, there could be no question of relying thereon. The provision in paragraph 29 of the Scheme of 1956 can only have reference to a genuine Jamabandi and not to any and every kind of Jamabandi, including a spurious Jamabandi. In the" circumstances if the special Jamabandi of 1946‑47 is found to be unreliable and not genuine, then no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Chairman of the Allotment Committee in determining the classification of the land on the basis of other reliable evidence placed before him in the shape of Khasra Girdawaris, RL‑II Forms and the previous Jamabandis of 1944‑45 in all of which the land had been consistently classified as nehri and not as banjar. Only the interpolated special Jamabandi showed the lands as banjar. It is not without significance that even before the High Court the learned counsel was not prepared to say that there was no interpolation in the special Jamabandi of 1946‑

47. He has tried now to explain this admission by saying that he made the state ment, because, the special Jamabandi had not been made available to him for inspection by the Central Record Office. If that was so, then he could have requested the Chairman, Allotment Committee or the Rehabilitation Commissioner to call for the special Jamabandi from the Record Office or even made such a request before the High Court, but the fact remains that this was not done. The assertion of the department, therefore, as to the interpolations remained unchallenged and the High Court had no reason to doubt its correctness. It has also been contended that it is not impossible that the character of the land might have changed after 1944‑45, for, even according to the instructions contained in Sir James M. Bouie's Revenue Land Manual at page 139, if a land is no cultivated for four crop periods, the land is to be classified as banjar jadeed. It is not for us to speculate as to whether the land was or was not cultivated after 1944‑

45. If the petitioner wanted to establish this fact, he should have adduced evidence in that behalf before the Rehabilitation authorities. It was not for the High Court in the writ jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere in the matter and we see no ground for taking a different view. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.