1985 PLP 107 (MLD)

Nemo for the Respondent No. l. Ehsanullah Khan Lilla for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1985. The petitioner was made allotment in lieu of the urban claim in Baghbanpura, Lahore and in Chak No.13-Gajiani, Tehsil Chistian. District Bahawalnagar, on 9-4-1963. The Chief Settlement Commissioner decided that in view of the fact that an urban claim cannot have allotment at two places, one in Baghbanpura and the other in Chak No.13-Gujtani, the petitioner may retain land in Chak No.13-Gajitlni, District Bahawalnagar, on the express condition that he (Muhammad Yahya) would surrender the land allotted to him in Baghbanpura, Lahore, immediately failing which his allotment in Chak No.13-Gajiani would be cancelled. According to the petitioner, he applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore, saying that the allotment made in Baghbanpura, Lahore, may be cancelled. Copy of the application was also sent to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Respondent No.2 who was the occupant of the land in Bahawalnagar and held rural claim sought to retain the same. All her efforts failed right upto the Supreme Court. On her motion, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, addressed the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 14-2-1974 saying that the petitioner was still holding the allotment in Lahore. The petitioner was issued a notice. He appeared and stated that in view of the instructions vide circular letter No.5515-70/5202-R(I.) dated 30-10-1970, wherein it has been laid down that in the second phase of settlement operations a person holding allotment in one place may also be made allotment in other place in lieu of his urban claim, therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to hold tits allotment in Lahore as well. The Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, did not agree with the plea and observed that since the petitioner had not complied with the earlier order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 9-4-1963, to surrender tire allotment in Lahore, he must surrender the same and in case of default his allotment in Bahawalnagar may be cancelled. This is vide order, dated 21-5-1976. Hence, this Constitutional petition.

2. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing on 8-6-1976, reliance was placed on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Settlement Revision No.4 of 1961 decided on 17-11-1971, to show that the allotment of urban agricultural land can be secured at more than one place. The petition was admitted for final hearing. It has come up today. .

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner having not surrendered the allotment in Lahore, his allotment in Bahawalnagar shall stand cancelled and the answering respondent No.2 being in occupation thereof would be entitled to the allotment thereof in lieu of his rural claim.

5. Taking the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 first, the right of the respondent to retain the urban land in lieu of the rural claim has been negated right upto the Supreme Court and the matter had concluded. As regards the right of the petitioner to hold allotment in two places, he was not found entitled in the first instance to have allotments at Bahawalnagar and at Lahore. He was rightly directed to give up the allotment in Lahore. In so far as the case of the petitioner that instructions were issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that in the second phase of allotment in lieu of urban claim, a claimant may be given land at more than one places, it is to be noticed that when the matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner on 21-5-1976, the petitioner was entitled to be allotted the land in Lahore, more so when the land was still with him and had not been allotted to anybody else. His plea to hold land at both places was well-based on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court.

6. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner shall be entitled to retain his No allotments in the Districts of Bahawalnagar and Lahore. However, in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. H . B . T . Petition allowed.