1991 PLP 2079 (CLC)

Ch. Abdur Rashid for Petitioners. M.Z. Khalil for Respondent No.1. M. Hanif Khatana for Respondents Nos.2 to

4. Date of hearing: 17th July, 1991. This petition by Ghulam Rasool and 13 others, is under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for seeking a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 29‑7‑1977 is without jurisdiction, without any lawful authority and hence in effective on the rights of the petitioners.

2. The facts of the petition are that Ghulam Rasool was allotted agricultural land measuring 255 Kanals in revenue estate Chakari Tehsil Shakargarh (presently District Narowal) in lieu of his claim bearing No. 15947. The allotment was finally made vide order dated 7‑2‑1963. Feeling aggrieved with this order Bashir Ahmad, Nazeer Ahmad, Rashid Ahmad and Mst. Jaj Bibi the legal heirs of Budha filed an appeal complaining therein that 47 Kanals out of the Aforesaid land was allotted to Budha, their predecessor‑in‑interest on 1‑11‑1962. As such the allotment of disputed 47 Kanals in favour of Ghulam Rasool was double allotment and merited cancellation. This petition was accepted by the impugned order by the learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by coming to the conclusion that 47 Kanals stood allotted to Budha on 11‑9‑1962 and could not be confirmed in favour of Ghulam Rasool. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allotment was made on the basis of genuine claim. No fraud or misrepresentation was made to the Settlement Authorities in obtaining the allotment. As such the allotment was not capable of cancellation under Sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It was then contended that the appeal was filed on 26‑1‑1971 against the order dated 7‑2‑1963 and so the appeal was barred by 9 years and merited dismissal on this ground. It was further suggested that since the allotment, the petitioners had been in possession of the land in dispute and so there was no circumstance justifying the conclusion that the allotment was double.

4. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents supported the impugned decision. It was stated that allotment in favour of Budha was made in 1962; that without cancelling this allotment and in absence of Budha 47 Kanals of their land was confirmed in favour of Ghulam Rasool. On the face of it this allotment was null and void and was uncreative of any right in fav6ur of Ghulam Rasool.

5. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department produced the record in the Court. Mr. Saeed Ahmad, Naib‑Tehsildar stated that the disputed land was situated in Khasra No.923/20‑3/2. This Khasra comprised five Khatas. The Khata in which the disputed land was situated comprised 342 Kanals. According to record Budha was allotted 255 Kanals on 1‑11‑1962. Subsequently Abdul Gham and Ghulam Rasool, secured the allotment. The date of confirmation in favour of Ghulam Rasool was 7‑2‑1963. The date of allotment in respect of Abdul Ghani could not be given with accuracy on account of absence of Register RL‑

11. He further added that this RL‑11 was in possession of the Board of Revenue under lock and key and he had no access to this record. On the basis of this statement, the learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.l, stated that the order was unexceptionable as far as the allotment in favour of Budha is concerned. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was also not able to controvert or refute this position. He frankly submitted that as a matter of fact his dispute was with Abdul Ghani. It. is interesting to note that neither Abdul Ghani was before the Appellate Court nor he has been impleaded here. It is also not disputed that the disputed 47 Kanals had been sliced away from the entitlement of Budha. In view of this factual background, I have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the order of the Appellate Court is eminently just and in consonance with the principle of doing substantial justice. The Settlement Authorities had no power to confirm the agricultural land earlier allotted to Budha in any manner. The petitioners, who are successors‑in‑interest of Ghulam Rasool, can seek remedy available to them before the forum of competent jurisdiction against Abdul Ghani, if they feel that Abdul Ghani was wrongly allotted land which stood allotted to their predecessor‑in‑interest. In the light of foregoing analysis, I do not find any legal or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order. It is a well‑recognised principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is intended to foster the justice and strike down the orders which, are found to be in excess of authority, or in absence of authority or patently in contravention of express provisions of law. No such circumstance has been shown for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, Accordingly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with the aforenoted observations. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑489/L Petition dismissed.