1986 PLP 424 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Double allotment of land‑‑Cancellation of first allotment‑ Request for retention‑‑ Allottees' request that he might be given choice to retain land allotment of which was cancelled from his name due to double allotment for land which he obtained subsequently, held, could not be allowed, allottee having already disposed of that land and was no longer owner thereof and right of vendees would also be affected adversely without any fault on their part. Ch. Amir Hussain for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Respondents Nos.2 to

4. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1984. The land in dispute which is situate in village Daab, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot, was allotted to the petitioner for the purposes of "Guzara" as J & K refugee. Later on alongwith his brothers he obtained allotment in village "Bucha Kohna", Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala against his verified claim. Respondents Nos.2 to 4, moved a Mukhbari application against the petitioner, that he obtained allotment in Tehsil Hafizabad, and also retained the land in village Daab fraudulently and unlawfully. This application has been allowed by the learned Settlement Commissioner with powers as Chief Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated 30‑6‑1977, and the land in village Daab was cancelled. The validity of this order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Only three contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the allotment in village Bucha Kohna, was procured by the petitioner's brother, namely, Rustam, without his knowledge and consent. Secondly, the land allotted to J & K refugees for the purposes of maintenance was sold away to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, Government of Pakistan. It was no longer available for allotment to others and that, the petitioner's allotment could not be cancelled and the land settled on the respondent. For his this submission, the petitioner's learned counsel, sought support from Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Mamla and 2 others P L D 1977 Lah.

202. Thirdly, if at all, the petitioner is not entitled to retain the land in village Daab his allotment in village Bucha Kohna, be cancelled and he may be allowed to retain the land in dispute against his verified claim. 3. 'There is no substance in any of these submissions. Before the learned Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner plainly owned the allotment standing in his name in village Bucha Kohna. The contention that this allotment was procured without his consent and information, is, merely an afterthought. In any case, it is conceded that the petitioner's brother Rustam, acted as his attorney and also disposed of the land. He is bound by the conduct of his agent. It is, thus, obvious that instead of getting the permanent allotment of the land in dispute, he tried to grab it as without informing the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities that he held the land for maintenance purposes, he managed to procure the allotment in village "Bucha Kohna" against his verified claim. In view of these circumstances no exception can be taken to the impugned order.

4. Even if, the land allotted to J a K refugee for Guzara purposes has been sold away to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, the said land would be deemed to have been earmarked for the benefit of the Displaced Persons from J & K State. It is noteworthy that the respondents also hail from J & K State. There would be, thus, no bar to allot the land in question in their favour against their verified claims. The precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, thus, of no avail to him.

5. The petitioner's request that he may be given the choice to retain the land in village Daab against his verified claim, cannot be allowed, for, the land in village Bucha Kohna has already been disposed of by him and he is no longer the owner thereof. The cancellation of the land in the latter village would adversely affect the rights of vendees without any fault on their part.

6. As all the contentions raised by the petitioner's learned counsel have failed, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.