1983 PLP 103 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 3‑7‑1977 dismissing his writ petition filed to challenge the cancellation by the Additional Settlement Commissioner of some land which was found to have been allotted in excess of his entitlement.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner had been verified for 5,858 Produce Index Units, against which he had been allotted land equal to 885 Units in Sahiwal District, and the balance of 4,973 Units had been transferred to Tehsil Pasroor, District Sialkot, where he was allotted land equal to 5507 Units during the period from 1955 to 1960. He sold away the land allotted to him in village Kaleke, Tehsil Pasroor, to Manzoor Hussain, etc., by mutation No. 714 dated 3U‑6‑1966.

3. On an application made on 20‑8‑1973 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, by respondents Muhammad Ismail and Ghulam Nabi, the Additional Settlement Commissioner found 1,557 Units to be in excess and accordingly by order dated 21‑10‑1975 withdrew the same from the petitioner's allotment in Tehsil Pasroor. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the order on the ground that the same had been made ex parte against him but the application was dismissed on 24‑11‑1975 for the reason, inter alia, that he had sought only the setting aside of the ex parte proceeding and not of the order of 21‑10‑1975. The learned Judge of the High Court, in the petitioner's writ petition, held that the petitioner's application should not have beep dismissed on that technical ground but as he found that only the excess lan8 had been cancelled from the name of the petitioner, he felt that a re‑hearing by the Settlement authorities would not advance the petitioner's case and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel insists that upon the view taken by the High Court that the rejection of the petitioner's application for re‑call of the ex parte order was not proper, the only course open for the High Court. was to have remitted the case back to the Settlement authorities. He submits that the excess bad not been properly calculated. and that for this reason, too, he should have been given an opportunity to present his case before the Settlement authorities. We notice that the particulars of the units as stated before us do net accord with those set out by the petitioner in his writ petition. However, according to the submission made by learned counsel, himself, the balance units transferred to Tehsil Pasroor had been 4,973 and according to the finding of the learned Judge of the High Court on the basis of Annexure "D/1" before him, an area equivalent to 4,973 had been left intact in the name of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter, we find, had not been controverted before the High Court. Even the vendees from the petitioner who had also filed a separate writ petition had not disputed this fact.

5. No case is, therefore, made out for inference with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.