1986 PLP 1269 (CLC)

Nemo for Respondent No.

3. Sh. Masood Akhtar for Respondent No.

4. Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985. This writ petition has been directed against the order of a Notified Officer whereby he purported to cancel the allotment of original claimant from whom the petitioners claim to be the purchasers in the year 1977. The allotment is said to have allegedly confirmed in favour of Sharaf Din in the year 1972.

2. The impugned proceedings were admittedly taken on a Mukhbri application, dated 29‑6‑1974 that is one day before the repeal of Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act. There has been no determinative finding recorded by the Notified Officer on two points. First is whether the allotment was genuinely made in favour of claimant Sharaf Din or it was a bogus transaction. Secondly, the identity of the claimant was also required to be looked into and also the correctness of his claim. Similarly, no finding has been recorded in the impugned order whether the Mukhbar was a genuine person; mukhbari application was given within time or that the mukhbar was a claimant holding a genuine verified claim. Above all, it was also to be examined by the Notified Officer as to what law was governing the allotment of land in urban areas of Lahore. A further infirmity in the impugned order of the Notified Officer is that he after cancelling the allotment, straightaway, ordered for the allotment of resumed land in favour of informers. This was not a matter within sphere of his jurisdiction. At best what hp could do was to declare a person to be informant and then the law was to take its own course.

3. I need not go into further aspect of the matter because learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No. 4 as well as the learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed, Advocate are one in saying that this is a fit case for being remanded to a Notified Officer for the purpose of an honest inquiry and decision of the matter after full application of mind to all the material facts and circumstances of the case and the questions which may be germane for finding out the genuineness of the allotment and validity of the Mukhbari application. The learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department further states that the land in dispute being highly valuable, therefore, while agreeing with the request of two learned counsel, he would pray that the case be sent to Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Boara of Revenue dealing with the cases on judicial side.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since widow and minor daughters are involved in this case, they deserve indulgence and they are ready to pay the prescribed price to the Provincial Government. Whatever be the worth of this plea it is for the petitioners, at appropriate stage, to raise this before the Member, Board of Revenue, who I am sure, would not be oblivious of the requirement of law of instructions in that behalf.

5. It is also agreed by all the learned counsel that it will be open for all the parties to raise whatever pleas are available to them, both on point of fact as well as law to substantiate their pleas or to controvert those which are prejudicial to them.

6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is accepted; impugned order is set aside and case is sent back to Sh. Maqbool Ahmed learned Member Board of Revenue for disposal in accordance with law. I think the learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed would do well by participating in the proceedings before the learned Member. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

7. Since the Settlement Department is winding up and further delay cannot be brooked, let the parties appear before the learned Member Board of Revenue (Sh. Maqbool Ahmad) on 3‑12‑1985. H. B. T.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.