1993 PLP 1117 (CLC)

The dispute in this case relates to 3716 Kanals 10 Marlas of land situated in Piplan Kacha, Tehsil and District Mianwali. This land was allotted in favour of Ibrahim son of Karam Bakhsh on 31‑8‑1972. These facts are stated by both the learned counsel.

2. By order dated 23‑11‑1981, Settlement Commissioner with power of Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled this land on a Mukhbari application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and the grounds of cancellation are stated in paras. 6 and 7 of the impugned order. Paras. 6 and 7 are reproduced as under:‑‑

6. The statement of Ch. Nasar Ullah, Naib‑Tehsildar, Central Record Office, Lahore was also recorded who deposed that the Jamabandis pertaining to villages where the abovementioned respondents are shown to have abandoned land in India are doubtful and a report has already been put up in this respect for Border Comparison.

7. From the perusal of the record and after going through the written arguments filed by the parties as well as after hearing the oral arguments of counsel, I have come to the conclusion that the abovementioned allotments have been secured by means of fraud and under the forged signatures of the Allotting Authorities and these allotments are therefore liable to cancellation. 1, therefore, in exercise of my powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, read with subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, do hereby order for cancellation and resumption of the land from the names of the respondents as detailed in para `4'. It is very strange that learned Settlement Commissioner was dealing with the entitlement of the parties and he in law ought to have taken into consideration the entitlement documents of the allottee. In para. 6, statement of Ch. Nasar Ullah, Naib‑Tehsildar, Central Record Officer Lahore was recorded who only expressed his opinion that the Jamabandis of the allottee pertaining to the villages on the other side of Border are doubtful and on this, learned Settlement Commissioner has based his decision.

3. I am of the view that the property rights of the allottees cannot be decided in such a slipshod manner. Even the learned counsel for Settlement Department does not support this order and is of the opinion that learned Settlement Commissioner cancelled the land from the name of original allottee on mere conjectures. According to him the case should be remanded before the Settlement Authorities for deciding the same afresh after examining the entitlement documents most carefully.

4. I am informed that the land in dispute has not so far been allotted as against the claim of the informer. In fact, according to para. 8 of the impugned order, the Mukhhars or their legal heirs never appeared before the Settlement Commissioner.

5. In view of the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is accepted and the order dated 23‑11‑1981 is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to learned Settlement Commissioner for re‑decision in accordance with the observations aforementioned.

6. The writ petitioners claim to be bona fide purchasers of the disputed land. They shall appear before the Member, Board of Revenue "Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. In case, they are in possession of that land in dispute and have purchased the same, the same shall be kept intact provided the land in dispute is not' cancelled from the, name of original allottee on ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the land is cancelled from the name of original allottee, the petitioners are entitled to purchase the same. This aspect of the case shall also be examined by learned Settlement Commissioner in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for Settlement Commissioner has rightly pointed out and I agree with him that this order is applicable only to the land measuring 3716 Kanals 10 Marlas situated at Piplan Kacha, Tehsil and District Mianwali and not to any other land mentioned in the impugned order dated 23‑11‑1981. AA./M‑876/L Petition accepted.