1997 PLP 2697 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 12‑11‑1980 of the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian by which the land in dispute measuring 74 Kanals, 6 Marlas situate in village Kot Boota Singh, Chunian, District Kasur has been sold to respondent @ Rs.100 per unit.

2. Petitioner Haji Aleem‑ud‑Din, acting as informer, filed a Mukhbari application against respondent Eisoo son of Umra that the disputed land was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, the same may be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The A.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner, Chunian vide his order dated 6‑4‑1976 accepted the Mukhbari application and cancelled the land in dispute from the name of respondent and it was further ordered that "the cancelled area shall be allotted to the petitioner as informer against his pending claim if any". Respondent filed Writ Petition No.700‑R of 1976 and the same was accepted and case remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties. The order of this Court is not available with the learned counsel for the parties.

3. After remand Settlement Commissioner, with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by his order dated 25‑6‑1978 held that the land was obtained by respondent by misrepresentation and he maintained the earlier cancellation in the name of respondent. Again Writ Petition No.857‑R of 1978 was filed by respondent and the same was dismissed on 23‑10‑1978 by this Court. It was argued before this Court in this writ petition that informer Haji Aleem‑ud‑Din does not hold any pending claim and in view of this respondent is entitled to the purchase of land and following observation was made:‑‑ "This matter is in the domain of the, competent Authority appointed under the Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975, to whom the petitioner may advert to if entitled."

4. It emerges from the record that by Memo. No.1040/80/10/8 (1), dated 24‑9‑1980 Board of Revenue approved the sale of 74 Kanals, 6 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.410, 411 and 416 situate in Chunian in favour of respondent Eisoo son of Umra provided the land was not urban. At the same time it was observed that Aleem‑ud‑Din informer was holding excess land to the tune of 289 P.I. units and this matter may also be kept in view. Thereafter, an order dated 12‑11‑1980 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian allowing the respondent Eisoo to purchase the land in dispute @ Rs.100 per unit and this order is impugned in this writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner, Chunian while permitting the sale of land in dispute in favour of respondent has not examined as to whether there was any pending claim of informer as against which the disputed land can be adjusted. On the contrary there are observations that informer was holding excess land to the extent of 289 units and this position is also taken up in the report submitted to this Court by the Settlement Authorities and on the basis of this learned counsel for respondent vehemently argues that petitioner Aleem‑14d‑Din is not entitled to any further allotment. Rather according to learned counsel he is already in possession of excess area to the extent of 289 units as is observed in the letter dated 24‑9‑1980 and also in the report submitted to this Court.

6. After hearing the arguments I am of the opinion that A.C., Chunian while examining the sale of property in question vide his order dated 12‑11‑1980 in favour of respondent has not considered the important aspect of the case as to whether petitioner is entitled to claim any more land as against his pending units or he was already holding excess area to the extent of 289 units as is given out in the letter dated 24‑9‑1980 and also in the report submitted to this Court. This was the moot point which ought to have been decided by the A.C., Chunian before passing impugned order dated 12‑11‑1980. Learned counsel has read the entire report to contend that petitioner is already holding excess area and this has been dealt with extensively in para. 10 of the report. 6‑A. Whatever may be the position, learned A.C. Chunian should have examined the question as to whether petitioner was entitled to any more area on account of pendency of his units or he was holding excess area. This officer has not said anything in this regard. In view of above, order dated 12‑11‑1980 passed in favour of respondent is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and case remanded to Chief Settlement Commissioner/MBR/Notified Officer for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. In case the Notified Officer comes to the conclusion that petitioner is not holding any balance of his claim to be adjusted as against disputed land, the same shall remain in the name of respondent as is already directed in the order dated 12‑11‑1980. The case will be decided within two months. Writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. A.A./A‑836/L Case remanded.