1983 PLP 255 (CLC)

In the first named case it was observed by M. A. Zullah, J. (now Judge of the Supreme Court), at page 76 of the report as follows: the fact remains that the property stood already transferred to the petitioner under another law by a. different authority and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Urban) acting under the Settlement Act had no jurisdiction to transfer the same to Taj Muhammad."In Rounaq Ali's case the facts were that the petitioners were allotted, the disputed Survey No. 73 provisionally and thereafter `Purchi Taqsim Khatoni' was issued to them on 12-1-1957 and the allotment was made permanent on 20-8-1974, while the contesting respondent had applied for allotment of disputed land in 1963 and was allotted the same in 1965 and on these facts Muhammad Haleem, J. (now the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) observed at page 226 of the report as follows: In terms of section 15(3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, their allotment is saved as it is a mandatory requirement of law that the earlier allotment shall be converted into a permanent one. At the time these survey numbers were permanently settled, no appeal, revision or review before a Settlement Authority was pending." And consequently declared the second allotment order without lawful authority and of no consequence. In the case of Muhammad Bashir, relied upon by Mr. Rizvi, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that unless allotment of land in favour of the prior allottee was cancelled, which is a condition precedent for availability fresh allotment could not be made. Now, taking up the second and the third contentions together it may be stated that the basis of the allotment under the Act is entitlement and not physical possession of the land and if the land was already allotted unless the allotment was cancelled in proceeding under same provisions of the Act the land was not available for allotment as under section 2(1) allotment is defined as follows : - "(1) Allotment.-Allotment means an allotment of Agricultural Land made to be a displaced person under this Act or under any Scheme, (1) P L D 1960 Kar. 48 (2) P L D 1961 Lab. 19 (3) P L D 1968 Lab. 770 (4) P L D 1969 Quetta 60 (5) P L D 1973 Kar. 224 (6) 1975 S C M R 173 in lieu of any claim Registered and verified, or deemed to have been registered and verified under any of the following enactments, namely .- "(i) The West Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949 (W. P. Act V of 1949) ; (ii) The Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) (Capital of the Federa tion) Ordinance, 1949 (XII of 1949). (iii) The North-West Frontier Province Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949 (N.-W. F. P. Act X of 1949) ; (iv) The Bahawalpur State Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act No. 14 of 1949 ; (v) The Sind Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1950 (Sind Act 11 of 1950) ; (vi) The Khairpur State Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance (IV of 1952); (vii) The Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) (Baluchistan) Regula tion, 1950 (l1I of 1950) ; and (viii) The Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956)." The petitioner's claim was verified under one of the Acts mentioned above, therefore, both the respondents were in grave error in passing the orders on the basis of possession of respondent No. 3, who, admittedly could not have come into possession before the date of allotment for it was no where his case that he came into possession prior to the allotment on 31-10-1960. His own case as already mentioned was that he was allotted the disputed land on 31-10-1960 in lieu of the land bearing Survey No. 4012, which was cancelled due to double allotment. In view of the above discussion it is not necessary to go into the remaining point of Mr. Rizvi. Accordingly, I allow this petition declaring the two orders impugned in this petition, to have been passed without lawful authority and are, therefore, of no legal effect. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs as Mr. Rizvi does not press for the same. S. Q. Petition allowed.