1994 PLP 1050 (CLC)

Irfan Masood Sheikh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993. This is a Constitutional petition directed against order dated 12‑1‑1983 of the O.S.D., Central Record Room by which he has ordered for the cancellation of excess area as against Claim Fortin No. 478 of the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case are that two persons by the name of Abdul Ghafar son of Abda abandoned their property in Village Moranda Hadbast 254, Tehsil Ropar, District Ambala and the claim of one person was wrongly verified as against the claim of another as there is similarity of names and parentage. However, the claims of both the families are entered as against Sr. Nos. 340 and 341 with different quantity of land. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application against present petitioners Mst. Sharifan and Sattaran, mother and sister, of Abdul Ghafar son of Abdaa‑, that their claim has wrongly been verified in favour of petitioners in addition to their own claim and, therefore, the same may be resumed and given to the respondents. A detailed inquiry was held and it was found that the land of respondents was wrongly verified in the name of petitioner's predecessor on Supplementary Claim Form No.

478. The matter was taken up and the O.S.D., Central Record Room vide his order dated 12‑1‑1983 ordered the cancellation and resumption of the excess area from Claim Form No. 478 which was filed by the petitioners as supplementary. At the same time he ordered that the land so resumed should be confiscated in favour of State as the respondents filed application after the repeal of Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners frankly concedes that the entitlement of petitioner's predecessor is 57 Bighas and 10 Biswas while he has been allotted land as against 66 Bighas and 15 Biswas and in this way there is excess entitlement for 9 bighas and 5 biswas which is against the claim of respondents. However,. he insists that petitioners are entitled to the sale of this land on the basis of possession. It is submitted that in so many cases excess area has been transferred under section 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) and same procedure may be applied here. Reliance is placed on (1989 MLD 4409) "Muhammad Rashid and others v. Assistant Commissioner, Multan and others".

4. I find that the facts of the precedent case are inapplicable. The excess land in favour of petitioners, 9 Bighas and 5 Biswas, is against the claim of respondents which was wrongly verified in the name of petitioner's predecessor because of similarity of names. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12‑1‑1983 was rightly passed that the excess area should be resumed from Supplementary Claim No. 478 filed by petitioners. However, there was no justification for the O.S.D. to hold at the same time that the excess area should be confiscated in favour of State. Not only the petitioners concede that the excess area belongs to respondents but there is also report dated 2‑10‑1982 to this effect by the. Tehsildar, Central Record Office.

5. It is held in (1981 SCMR 818) "Jalal Din etc. v. O.S.D. and another"‑‑‑ that if the claim of one person is recorded or verified wrongly, the correction can be ordered.

6. For the reasons stated above, the order of the O.S.D., Central Record Room dated 12‑1‑1983 summoning the supplementary Claim Form No. 478 is maintained. However, it is directed that the O.S.D. shall separate and resume the excess land, allotted to the petitioners, as against the claim of respondents and the area so resumed, then, shall be allotted to the respondents as against their claim and the same will not be confiscated in favour of the State as directed in the impugned order dated 12‑1‑1983 by the O.S.D. There is no order as to costs H.B.T./S‑399/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly,