1987 PLP 203 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1986. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑Through the present appeal Mst. Sakina Bibi and others have impugned the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 21‑11‑1973; who on accepting the writ petition of the respondents set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 16‑2‑1967.

2. The brief facts are that Khan Muhammad alias Khanoo, now represented by his legal representatives, was allotted land equivalent to 1287 P.I. Units inclusive of 287 mortgagee units. On 4‑7‑1960 the 287 units were cancelled by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958. The above cancellation order was challenged by the respondents through a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This was rejected on 16‑8‑1961 and their revision under section 21 of the Act was dismissed by the High Court, on 21‑12‑1961 holding that Khanoo was entitled to the allotment of 1000 P.I. Units only. Notwithstanding the above decision (which was communicated to the lower Settlement Authorities) the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Jaranwala, allowed the respondents to retain 108 P.I. Units by way of 10% "beshi" because of the inferior quality of soil in Jaranwala and cancelled the remaining 149 units from their name. This time the appellants filed an application against the allotment to the respondents before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Faisalabad, which was rejected on 23‑8‑1962 and their appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, also met the same fate vide order, dated 29‑6‑1963. Still not satisfied the appellants filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, which was accepted on 16‑2‑1967 on the ground given therein. The respondents then filed a constitutional petition against the order, dated 16‑2‑1967 which was accepted by the order, dated 21‑11‑1973 whereby the High Court set aside the order, dated 16‑2‑1967 and restored that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 29‑6‑1963. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the various orders.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned Judge in Chambers has misconstrued the order passed previously by the High Court in exercising the powers under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act wherein it was held that under para. 7, Chapter II, Part I of the Rehabilitation Scheme, the respondents were entitled to an allotment of 1000 P.I. Units and no more, therefore, the above order is not sustainable. 5.The above question has received the full consideration of the learned Single Judge who has repelled the same by observing: "A careful reading of the order passed by the High Court shows that the said order was founded on the provisions of para. 7 of the Settlement Scheme and, therefore, the mortgagee units' amounting to 287 units held by the petitioners were ordered to be excluded. After the said 287 units had been withdrawn, ii became necessary to adjust the allotment made in favour of the petitioners. At that stage, the question of how much area should be permitted to remain with them necessarily arose. The area allotted to the petitioners was described to be in a Thur and Sem area. Consequently, when the final allotment was to be made, notwithstanding the orders of the High Court, they provisions of para. 16(5) of the Scheme could still be taken into account. The order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner is based on the presumption that the order of the High Court excluded the application of the above provision. However, as explained above, this was not the effect of the said order. In so far as the High Court's order has not been properly construed, the order of the Settlement Commissioner must be held to be contrary to law and to be without lawful authority."

6. The learned counsel for the appellants, we are afraid, has not been able to bring us to a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the High Court. 7.Thus, finding no force in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs. M. I. Petition dismissed