1992 PLP 545 (CLC)

Maqbool Elahi Malik A‑G and M.M. Saeed for Respondent No.1. S.M. Masood for Respondent No.10. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1990. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J‑‑‑Petitioner claims that he was transferred two evacuee Ihatas, one measuring 1 Kanal 15 Marlas 7 Sarsais vide order dated 9‑7‑1960 and the other measuring l Kanal 1 Marla 6 Sarsais vide order dated 19‑10‑1965. Case of the petitioner is that he was informed by the respondents that the area of the said Ihatas was included in the exchange of evacuee land around the city of Faisalabad measuring 5235 acres with 7150 acres of Crown/State land situate in the District of Faisalabad. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this constitutional petition to assail the validity of the exchange in question.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in view of the Memorandum No.1552‑85/1957‑CIV dated 17th October, 1985 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab and the Notification No.186‑88/1316‑CIV dated 12th June, 19$8 issued by the Government of Punjab, Colonies Department whereby certain specified evacuee areas included in the aforesaid exchange have been excluded therefrom and the Government of Punjab have further decided that persons holding the genuine and valid Permanent Transfer Deeds in case of urban area or in whose favour valid allotment orders exist in Register RL‑II in the case of rural area in respect of the evacuee land (now State land) which were finalized prior to 3‑1‑1958 may be allowed to acquire proprietary rights for such land on satisfying certain conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Notification, petitioner would like to, approach the relevant authority for necessary relief made available to him by the aforementioned Memorandum and the Notification. That being so, it is stated by the learned counsel that he is withdrawing this petition.

3. Learned Advocate‑General states that if the petitioner approaches the relevant authority and satisfies him that he is holding the genuine and valid PTD issued to him before the issuance of the afore referred Notification dated 12‑6‑1988, he will be allowed to acquire the proprietary rights provided, of course, he satisfies all other conditions mentioned in the Notification dated 12‑6‑1988. It is further agreed that if the petitioner has in the meantime been forcibly dispossessed from the property allotted confirmed to him, the authority concerned while examining the question of possession in terms of the Notification dated 12‑6‑1988 would only see whether he was in possession on the date the property was transferred to him. Mr. S.M. Masud, Advocate appearing for respondent No.10 prayes that it may be observed that respondent No.10 shall also be heard by the authority concerned when passing any order in respect of the property in dispute. No such observation is called for. The said respondent or for that matter any other person claiming any interest in the property in dispute shall, of course, be heard by the relevant authority. In view of what has been said above, this writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs. AA./M‑3132/L Petition disposed of as withdrawn.