1968 SCMR 121 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition relates to allotment of lands made in Chak 318/HR in Tehsil Fort Abbas, Bahawalnagar District in favour of three persons, namely (1) Muhammad QRSiM, predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad shafi and others, the proud petitioners (hereinafter referred to for brevity, as "Muhammad Qasim"), (2) Said Muhammad and (3) Din Muhammad. Each was a refugee and came to Pakistan with a large claim for land abandoned in India. Muhammad Qasim had a claim to 11,528 units, of which he received land equivalent to 3,000 units in Chak 20/3-R in the same Tahsil. For the balance, he was given a sadaqatnama entitling him to land in all or any of three Chaks, viz. No. 312/HR, 328/HR, and 320/HR. The finding of three Settlement authorities is that the second figure had been irregularly altered to 318/HR but each of the authorities expressly overlooked the irregularity. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner for instance, said "There has no doubt been some alteration in the sadaqatnama and application mention if the Chak numbers ...... It would no doubt have been better if the alteration had been made by a separate application, but in the circumstances it cannot be a ground for completely ignoring the claim of Muhammad Shaft for this reason alone. " The final order in Settlement by an Additional Settlement Commissioner, contains the following observations:- "It is no doubt true that the certificate issued to Muhammad Shafi and others by the A, R. C., Fort Abbas on 19-5-57 was meant for Chak No. 328 and that in course of time the figure 328 was changed into 318, but the question for considera tion is whether in such a situation it should not be held after the lapse of five years that their claim for the allotment of land in Chak No. 318 is misconceived merely because 'they are guilty of forging official documents. I do not feel inclined to take such a narrow view of the case." There was a clear irregularity found by the relevant authorities, in the mode by which Muhammad Qasim procured transfer of his unsatisfied units to Chak 318/HR. This has a bearing on the strength of the attack by Muhammad Qasim based on allegations of irregularity, upon the similar tranfers secured by the other two allottees named above. The record shows that the first order which has the effect of attaching Muhammad Qasim's unsatisfied claim to land in Chak 318/HR is of the date the 7th June 1957. The sadaqatnama was of date 19th May 1957, but it nominated three Chaks, and not one, and moreover, the alterations which gave the sadaqat nama effect qua land in Chak 318/HR took place during the interval of the following 18 days during which the sadaqatnama was registered on the 22nd May 1957, the order was endorsed to the Naib-Tahsildar, and the latter endorsed it to the patwaris of the two Chaks other than Chak 320/HR where no land was available. The 7th June 1957, is the date on which proposals were made for allotments in relation to the transferred claims of all the three contestants. The claim of Said Muhammad was received in Chak 318/HR on the 3rd May 1957, and that of Din Muhammad on the 6th June 1957. Said Muhammad's total claim was for 8,634 units of which 4,300 unsatisfied units were transferred. Din Muhammad's total claim was for 22,000 units of which 8,000 were transferred. It is correct to think, since Muhammad Qasim had a transfer order in respect of one Chak namely 312/HR besides 318/HR, that the ear-marking of his unsatisfied unite, in relation to the latter Chat took effect on the date of the proposal that 7,000 units should be allotted to him there. On the point of priority, then, the order would appear to be (1) Said Muhammad, (2) Din Muhammad, (3) Muhammad Qasim. If the "first come first served" principle had been applied, Said Muhammad should have got his units in full, and the balance should have gone to Din Muhammad, any left-over units going to Muhammad Qasim. In fact, the following distribution was made by the Assistant, Settlement Commissioner:- Said Muhammad 284 kanals Din Muhammad ... 280 kanals Muhammad Qasim ... 938 kanals The unsatisfied balance of the units of these three persons bear approximately the following proportion, viz. 1 to r85 to 2, but the areas allotted to them by the Assistant Settlement Commis sioner were in the proportion 1 to 1 to 3-1/3, thus greatly favouring Muhammad Qasim at the expense of Din Muhammad. In appeal, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner made alterations: he cancelled the allotment to Din Muhammad, giving all that land to Muhammad Qasim's successor, but allowed Said Muhammad to keep his allotment. Revisions were taken before an Additional Settlement Commissioner, who varied the allotments as below Said Muhammad ... 320 kanals Din Muhammad ... 472 kanals Muhammad Qasim ... 710 kanals the proportion being approximately 2 to 3 to 5, still favouring Muhammad Qasim at the expense of Din Muhammad. Not satisfied with this, the successors of Muhammad Qasim moved a writ in the High Court, claiming all the land allotted to the other two parties. The writ was refused in a lengthy order by a Division Bench, in which a great number of questions raised before the Court were examined at length. One of the points raised, and which is raised before us again, was that the units of Said Muhammad and Din Muhammad were accepted in Chak 318/HR on presentation of the Fard Haqiat in each case directly, whereas the prescribed procedure required that they should have been routed through a channel of offices. It is not suggested that their unsatisfied balances were less than the areas allotted to them in the final Settlement order. It seems to us that the case did not call for application of any technical rules, since there was no question of absolute right to receive land in Chak 318/HR. Each party was seeking a grant, in relation to his unsatisfied units, at the hands of authorities whose task was to distribute the available benefits as equitably as possible among the verified claimants. The rule of priority was not applied, and of this, the benefit went in the largest measure to Muhammad Qasim. If Said Muhammad and Din Muhammad had reached their claims to Chak 318/HR by short circuiting the pres cribed procedure, Muhammad Qasim had done so by falsifying his sadagatnama and application by changing the figure 328/HR entered in them irregularly to 318/HR. Each claim therefore was affected by a technical flaw, that of Muhammad Qasim being the most serious. The final grants made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner do not suffer from the degree of disproportion which appears in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, and to a lesser degree in that of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. These final grants therefore approximate most closely to the requirements of equity. The demand of Muhammad Qasim to full satisfaction of his claim, to the exclusion of Said Muhammad and Din Muhammad was plainly unconscionable and was rightly refused. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed