1986 PLP 555 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Bashir for Petitioners. Jari Ullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1986. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions No.1373‑R of 1976 and 1374‑R of 1976.

2. Tufail Muhammad petitioner informed the Settlement Authorities that Sher Muhammad etc. respondents in W.P. No.1373‑R of 1976 and Muhammad Yusuf etc. respondents in W.P. No.1374‑R of 1976 had obtained allotment in excess of their entitlement; in the former, of 108 Kanals 10 Marlas and in the latter 108 Kanals 15 Marlas. The informers prayed for action under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The petitions were rejected in both the cases by A . C . , Wazirabad exercising the powers of A . S . C . (L) on 26‑7‑1976. The informer has now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents were owners of land which was in occupation of occupancy tenants who were not paying Lagan to the owners and the respondents were, therefore, not entitled to allotment in lieu of that land. In this connection he has referred to the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad Patwari of the Central Record Room. This statement, according to the petitioners, clearly showed that the respondents were not entitled to allotment as the occupancy tenants were covered by section 5(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the very locus stands of the petitioners to bring these writ petitions. In this connection he has referred to the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Chief Settlement Commissioner; Lahore and 8 others 1974 S C M R

85. But even on merits it may be noticed that the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad Patwari cannot be read as conclusive piece of evidence to bring the case of the respondents within the provisions of section 5(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. The Patwari has referred to two contradictory entries, one in the register of the case and the other in the Jamabandi. The Jamabandi obviously has reference to the special Jamabandi. The entries of special Jamabandi have to be preferred, which show that the tenants were paying Lagan to the owners, namely the respondents. This means that the case of the respondents was not covered by section 5(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred me to the case of Muhammad Yaqub and others v. Nazar Khan and others 1983 S C M R 1252 in order to show that the Settlement Authorities do not have jurisdiction to inquire into fraud, if any, committed during the registration of claims, although the learned counsel states that this is not a case of fraud at all as the respondents submitted their claim and the Fard was duly verified according to the claims.

5. In view of the above considerations I find no merit in these writ petitions. They are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T Petitions dismissed.