1986 PLP 2055 (CLC)

This writ petition assails an order, dated 17-6-1977 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot (Annexure 'E') whereby the property in question was held to be agricultural land rather than urban.

2. As urban property was auctioned in favour of the petitioner in 1960 but on his failure to pay up the dues in time it was resumed on 25-7-1968 whereafter seemingly it was transferred to the respondents. Subsequently the petitioner, was, however allowed to make the deposit and aggrieved by it, respondents preferred a Revision which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to determine if it was urban property or agricultural land. He, after a thorough enquiry, held it by the impugned order to be agricultural land which under the relevant law could not be transferred to the petitioner. He, therefore, brought the present writ petition

3. The respondents opposed it, inter alia, on the ground that the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner being essentially of fact involving appreciation of evidence could not be challenged in the writ petition.

4. Syed Faqir Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner adverted attention to quite a few jamabandis (Annexures E/I', 'F', 'G' and 'H'), sale-deed (Annexure 'J') and site plan (Annexure 'M') which according to his reading consistently showed that the property in dispute being a part of Khasra No. 1295 was situated within the limits of Daska Town and that the impugned order was patently wrong as it did not take note of such a consistent record. He assailed the view that the various notifications laying down the municipal boundaries of this town did not include the impugned plot. Although those notifications were not placed upon this file, yet he tried to argue from a photostat held by him that those notifications pointed out only the outer circumstances with reference to particular Khasra numbers without. enumerating each one of them lying within those parameters. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order expressed inability to find the disputed plot covered by any of those notifications and, therefore, was tit the opinion that it fell outside the bounds of the Municipal Committee

5. The various documents referred to above were admittedly trot placed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and, therefore, cannot be brought into consideration now. They constituted somewhat new material partaking the shape of additional evidence which may not be considered in writ jurisdiction. It should have been adduced before him at the earlier stage and for this failure can be of no assistance now to the petitioner. Secondly, the notifications are expected normally to give each individual Khasra number when it is placed within municipal limits. Assuming that those laid down only the outer circumference, an effort should have been made to pin-point that Khasra No. 1295 referred to above was located somewhere within those limits. It is all a surmise now.

6. The impugned order reflects against the conduct of the petitioner inasmuch as he was found to have tampered with the record. Even the initial suction held in his favour was found not to be conforming to the rules. Be that as it may, his attempt to tamper with the record disentitles him to ask for the extraordinary relief. The writ petition is. therefore, dismissed with costs. S. A . Petition dismissed.