1973 PLP 208 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents 5 to

7. Date of hearing : 13th March 1973. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑The dispute in this case concerns the enti tlement of the respondents in terms of produce index units on account of agricultural land abandoned by their predecessors‑in- interest in Faridkot State in India. The present petitioner had laid information against the respondents to the effect that they had obtained excess units as the land abandoned by them in India was not irrigated, but it had been incorrectly treated as such while calculating the entitlement of the respondents. After inquiry the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 8‑8‑1964, held that the land abandoned was not irrigated and therefore, the entitlement of the respondents should be reduced by 151 P. I. Units. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 23‑1‑1965, and their revision petition also met the same fate by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 28th of April 1965. The respondents thereupon took the matter to the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution and succeeded in per suading a learned Single Judge of that Court to remand the case to the Settlement Commissioner (Land) Multan for fresh decision after hearing the parties on the question whether the kind of land as shown in the special jamadandi received from India was irrigated by canal or not. The learned Judge has expressed the view that, apart from the controversy whether the predecesors‑in- interest of the respondents were occupancy tenants under sec tions 51‑A and 51‑C of the Tenancy Act, the real question was regarding the true nature of the land abandoned by the respon dents, but the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities had not examined the question whether land" described as Gisra 4wal Nehrl and Gisra Doem Nehri were irrigated or not. Special leave to appeal is sought against this order mainly on the ground that the question raised in the writ petition by the respondents was essentially a question of fact, and had been an swered against them by the competent,‑authorities, and therefore, no justification was made out for a High Court to order a fresh examination of the same question by the authori ties. It is also submitted that in any case in the grounds of appeal and revision filed by the respondents against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 18th of August 1964, no specific grievance was made regarding the true nature of the land abandoned in India and the main controversy was with regard to the nature of the occupancy rights enjoyed by the predecessors‑in‑interest of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that no justification is made out for our interference in the matter. Although the controversy was raised in appeal and revision regarding the nature of the occupancy rights of the prede cessors‑in‑interest of the respondents, yet the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by which the entitlement of the res pondents was reduced by 151, P I. Units, proceeded on the basis that the land abandoned in India was not irrigated. It will be seen, therefore, that the real controversy in the case was regarding the nature of the abandoned land and not regarding the nature of the occupancy rights of the last holders of the land in India. The special jamabandl received from India showed that the land abandoned by the respondents was described as Gisra Awal Nehri and Gisra Doem Nehri. The Settlement Authorities failed to determine the question whether such land had to be treated as irrigated or not, as they were inhibited by the fact that in the ins tructions complied for the purpose by the Central Record Office, the land abandoned in Faridkot State in India was divided into only three categories namely, Nehri, Chahl and Barani and there was no mention of land described by the terms Gisra Awal and Gisra Doem. It is clear that such an approach was erroneous as the special jamabandi showed that, apart from the classification made by the Central Record Office, there were these other descri ptions, which had been translated in terms of P. I. Units in Pakistan. The learned Judge in the High Court was therefore, r33ght in directing a re-examination of the question. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.