P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)

AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This is an appeal by one Mst. Bashiri, widow of Murtaza, by special leave of this Court, from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, refusing to issue a writ allowing the appellant to retain her `confirmed area' and quashing the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated the 1st February 1957. The facts are that both the appellant and respondent No. 2 came to Pakistan as refugees from India and settled in village Qadirpur Rawan in the District of Multan which was treated for rehabilitation purposes as a congested District. The respondent No. 2 was assigned an allowance of Rs. 450 per month by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Lahore, while the appellant was treated as a member of the family of one Muhammad Siddiq, also a refugee from India, who was temporarily allotted some land by the Collector of Multan on the 13th January 1951 and in deter mining the extent of land allotted to him the size of his family was taken into consideration, of which the appellant Mrs. Bashiri who was a widow of a deceased paternal uncle of Siddiq was shown as a member. These were temporary arrangements for settle ment of refugees and the next step taken by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) was to allot lands to the refugees. In the course of carrying out the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) allotted an area of 2000 units in the name .of respondent No. 2, which was contested by the appellant, and was confirmed on the 17th March 1952. The appellant had contested the claim of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that as she claimed to be an allottee in the village, under the rules she had a preferential claim against allowance holders, to which category the respondent No. 2 belonged. Some time after the allotment to the respondent No. 2 was confirmed, there was an amendment in the Scheme by Punjab Government Memorandum No. 831-R (L), dated the 5th February 1953, to the following effect :

"For the purpose of allotment of land under the Rehabili tation Settlement Scheme, widows, unmarried daughters and minors should also be considered as allottees in the village in which their relatives hold allotments." Evidently having come to know of this the appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated the 17th March 1952 after a lapse of about 2 years, namely, on 20th January 1954, when the appeal was hopelessly time-barred. The appellate authority, namely, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, however, by his order dated the 26th July 1954, held that the appellant was a temporary allottee in the village evidently treating her as a member of the family of Muhammad Siddiq and as such "the respondent who is an allowance holder cannot be treated at par with the appellant". He, therefore, remanded the case with the direction that the claim of the respondent, Muhammad Ghulam Yasin, should be satisfied after accommodating the appellant, Mst. Bashiri. Against this order the respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner, who after having gone into the case fully and having con sidered the relevant files found as a fact that the appellant had admitted in a claim she filed (No. 4469) that no area had been allotted to her in this village. He further found with reference to office files that the family of Muhammad Siddiq consisted only of three persons, in which Mst. Bashiri was not included. He, therefore, found "I am satisfied that Mst. Bashiri is not included in the family of Muhammad Siddiq. She, therefore, cannot be treated as an allottee of this village. The area in dispute was confirmed to the petitioner in 1952," and he directed that it be restored to the respondent No.

2. At the end of the judgment, however, he appended a note evidently relying on the amendment in the Scheme dated the 5th February 1953 to the following effect :

"Mst. Bashiri, respondent, is a widow. Her relatives have settled in this Chak and on that account she may be treated as a special class allottee, and area, if any, available in the village be allotted to her." . This order was passed on the 1st February 1957. It was against this order that the appellant filed a writ petition to the High Court, which was dismissed as stated above. It was urged in support of this appeal before us that both as an allottee and a widowed relation of Siddiq, who was a temporary allottee in the village, she acquired the character of an allottee under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and was entitled to preferential claim over respondent No. 2, who was only an allowance holder. We are unable to accept this argument, as the definite finding of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner based on proper record is that the appellant at one stage herself admitted that she was not an allottee, and the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner also found that she was not a member of the family of Siddiq but only a widowed relative. The right to be considered for allotment was given to a widowed relation of an allottee and her right to compete with the respon dent No. 2 arose for the first time on 5th February 1953 long after the allotment to the respondent No. 2, which was valid at the time, was completed and the question was closed. The appellant, therefore, was not entitled to re-open the allotment by a writ petition. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.