1985 PLP 169 (SCMR)

(b) Settlement Scheme No. VII

Scheme does not debar a minor from claiming entitlement to transfer on basis of his occupation of a plot on rural site since before 1961. Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- These three petitions arise from one and the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, disposing of three writ petitions.

2. The dispute relates to three plots identified as plot Nos. 19, 20 and 25, situate in village Barki Badhal, Tehsil Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi.- The relevant survey register showed plots 19 and 20 to have been in the occupation of Akhtar Hussain (respondent in Civil Petitions 1191 and 1223) and plot No. 25 in the occupation of Adalat Khan (respondent in Civil Petition No. 1190), from before 1961. Neverthe less, the plots were transferred on 19-8-1971 to the various petitioners, that is, plot No. 19 to Mango Khan (petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1223), plot No. 20 to Shah Muhammad etc. (petitioners in Civil Petition No. 1191) and plot No. 25 to Hav. Muhammad Akbar (petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1190). The said respondents agitated the matter but their appeals and revisions having failed, they successfully invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the plots in question which were rural sites and were in occupation of the respondents since before 1961 stood automatically transferred in their favour by operation of law and that though the respondents were locals, the law made no distinction in that regard between a local and a displaced person.

3. The extracts from the survey register furnished with these petitions do have an entry in the relevant column to show that the plots in question were in the occupation of the respective respondents who claimed to have been in possession from before 1961. There is, therefore, no reason to find fault with the view taken by the High Court that the plots which were rural sites were deemed transferred in favour of the respondents under Scheme No. VII. Learned counsel, however, urges that respondent Akhtar Hussain was a minor on the crucial date, that is, 1-1-1961, and as such could not be said to be in occupation in his own rights. This contention has been dealt with by the High Court but rejected. In any case, nothing turns on this assertion because the Scheme does not debar a minor from claiming entitlement to transfer on the basis of his occupation. We thus find no merit in these petitions and hereby dismiss the same. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.