1981 PLP 516 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The dispute in this case concerns evacuee land comprised in Khasm No. 2181, situate in village. Jaura, Tehsil Kharian of the Gujrat District. From the various documents on the record, and the orders made by the Settlement Authorities, it appears that this particular Khasra number was allotted to respondent Hashim Bibi in 1967. The present petitioners filed an appeal against this order after several years, and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 13th of November, 1972. The petitioners then filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed on the 29th of September, 1973. It appears that a further revision was also filed and the case was remanded by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 8-12-1973, and on remand the matter was again decided against the petitioners by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 22nd of April, 1974. Thereafter the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed on the 21st of October, 1975. All the authorities, who have dealt with this case, have recorded a finding that the Khasra number in dispute had been allotted and confirmed in the name of the respondent in lieu of her pending units, and that this was done in the year 1967. From the order of the High Court it appears that this allotment was upheld by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 11th of July, 1968, although a copy of that order has not been placed on the present record. On these findings it has been found that the present petitioners had no entitlement to obtain this particular Khasra number, for which they started agitating in the year 1972, at a time when the land was not available for allotment to them, as it had already been disposed of in favour of the respondent. In seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated the 21st of October, 1975, it is submitted by Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Kban. learned counsel for the petitioners, that they were the sitting allottees of this tillage and had a right to be heard when the land was first allotted in favour of the respondent, and as no such opportunity was given to them, the allotment and confirmation in question were without lawful authority. We regret we do not see any merit in this submission, for the simple reason that from a copy of the RL-II placed on the record by the petitioners themselves, it becomes clear that the allotment of the disputed Khasra number was made in favour of the respondent in the normal manner, which does not include the issuance of any individual notice to persons, who may have filed claims in the estate. It is well known that all such proceedings arc generally taken in the presence of the village gathering, and the arrival of the Rehabilitation/Revenue Officer in the village has always been regarded as sufficient notice for such purposes. If the Khasra number had already been allotted in the name of the petitioners, and it was sought to be taken away from them, then the requirement of individual notice would have to be fulfilled; but there is no such procedure provided for initial allotments of evacuee agricultural land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. As a result, it becomes clear that the disputed Khasra number was allotted in favour of the respondent in the year 1967, in the normal manner, and was not available for allotment to the petitioners in the year 1972. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was, therefore, rightly dismissed; and the present petition also fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.