1986 PLP 1001 (CLC)

S.M. Zamir Zaidi for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1985. The land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners on temporary basis, in their capacity as refugees from J&K State, for the purposes of their subsistence. On the application of respondent No. 1 under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, respondent No. 2 exercising the powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, under his order, dated 1‑4‑1976 held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the petitioners' father owned ancestral land in village Deuli, Tehsil Narowal to which place he reverted after partition. The tenor of his order shows that he did not accept the petitioners as refugees from J&K State. He also maintained that the subsistence purpose, for which the land was allotted to the petitioners was no longer in existence. In view of these findings, the petitioners' allotment was cancelled and land allotted to respondent No. 1 against her verified claim. 2. Respondent No. 1 is absent despite service. She is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the available record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the findings of the Tribunals below, casting doubts on the petitioners' status as refugees from J&K State. He submitted that the petitioners' father owns only one Kanal land in village Deuli and after partition had to migrate to the said village, from the occupied pact of J & K State. It has been further submitted that the land allotted to a refugee from J&K State could not be cancelled on a Mukhbari application filed by a person who is not a displaced person from J&K State. According to the learned counsel the land held by J & K refugees has already been purchased by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs for their settlement and such land did not form part of the compensation pool, for, its allotment to the persons who did not hail from J&K State. 3. To begin the question of the petitioners' status, it is to be noticed that there is nothing on the record to show as to what is the extent of the ancestral property of their father. The fact remains that he owned immovable property in village Deuli since before partition and after partition settled in his ancestral village. At the time of partition presumably 'the petitioners were minors and dependants of their father his has not been refuted by the learned counsel at the bar. This renders the genuineness of the petitiponers' need for allotment of the land for the purposes of 'guzara' as exceedingly doubtful. There is, reason to believe that the land in question was wrongfully held by them as a refugee from J&K State. As minors, their status was that of their father. No exception can thus be taken to the cancellation of their allotment and allotment of the land to the respondent against her verified claim. 4. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed but with no order as to costs. .H.B.T. Writ refused.