Allotment of land

Matter involved seriously disputed and contentious questions of facts, including but not limited to ownership of subject land, legality of possession, existence of alleged village, applicability of 2008 policy and competing claims of different respondents

Petitioners and authorities had taken divergent factual stands which could not be resolved without recording of evidence

Disputed questions of fact, particularly those requiring evidence, examination of documents and determination of title or possession cannot be adjudicated in Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional Court does not function as a Trial Court to resolve factual controversies or to conduct roving inquiries

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as declaration of entitlement, regularization of land and issuance of lease involved exercise of statutory and administrative functions by competent authorities and the same could not be substituted by Constitutional Court in absence of clear violation of law or mala fide exercise of power established on admitted facts

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were citizens of Pakistan who were aggrieved of transfer of more than one million acres of State land by Caretaker Government to Pakistan Army on partnership and joint venture basis for the purposes of Corporate Agriculture Farming

Petitioners assailed notification issued by Government of Punjab transferring the land in favour of Pakistan Army

Validity

Joint venture on profit-sharing basis was beyond the scope of S.10(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as its mandate was limited to creation of tenancy

In order to forcibly bring transaction in question within the scope of controlling provision of S.10(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, several provisions were incorporated in notification in question

Statement of Conditions executed between the two parties could not travel beyond the scope of controlling provision and Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as a whole

Definition of 'lessee' was inserted in Statement of Conditions to include any person to whom State land was leased

This was done to assign a nomenclature of 'lessee' to Pakistan Army as a joint venture partner to circumvent limited mandate of S.10(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Lease through single source was regarded a 'lease' under the Statement of Conditions yet it was subjected to a profit-sharing formula in contrast to a lease through open auction which was based on a rental model

Incorporation of two separate models in Statement of Conditions itself testified that provisions of Notification in question travelled beyond the scope of S.10 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as the parent Statute

Such arrangement was ultra vires and unlawful

Venture of Corporate Agriculture Farming by Pakistan Army was not approved by Federal Government as there was no approval of Federal Cabinet

There was also no approval of Chief of Army Staff authorizing to undertake Corporate Agriculture Farming initiative

Even if there was any such approval, the same was without approval of Federal Government and was unconstitutional and unlawful

Policy of Corporate Agriculture Farming was inherently in violation of the guiding principles

State land comprising more than one million acres was reserved for one particular entity, thereby, concentrating holding in one hand, whereas, it was possible and equitable to frame a policy that could call for inclusion of maximum number of persons to ensure that they would earn their livelihood by taking State land on lease

Through policy in question, the cultivators of State land would become employees instead of being direct lessees which would reduce their earnings and means of livelihood

Objective of Corporate Agriculture Farming initiative could be well achieved by fixing a ceiling and making a transparent competitive policy so that State land could be divested as lease to maximum beneficiaries who could get benefit from transfer of technology and collaborate with foreign entities willing to invest in the sector

This was precisely the model which was being considered by previous Elected Government

Equally important policy consideration was that State property was to be disposed of in a manner that could fetch maximum return to the State because the property belonged to the nation as a whole and not to a few beneficiaries of a particular scheme

Superior Courts had repeatedly emphasized competitive, published, open and transparent processes to fetch maximum price

Profit-sharing model envisaged by Caretaker Cabinet with inherent risk of loss was against such dictates

Policy in question did not adhere to the guiding Principles of Policy enshrined in the Constitution

Caretaker Government lacked Constitutional and legal mandate to take any decision regarding Corporate Agriculture Farming initiative and policy in any manner whatsoever, in terms of S.230 of Election Act, 2017

Future elected government could resume Corporative Agriculture Farming initiative after the stage of its conditional approval by previous Elected Cabinet and would proceed in accordance with law

Armed Forces including Pakistan Army and / or its subordinate or attached Departments / offices lacked Constitutional and legal mandate to indulge and participate in Corporate Agriculture Farming initiative and policy in terms of Art.245 of the Constitution

Transaction in question consisting of the decisions taken and approval accorded to Statement of Conditions in caretaker Ministerial Committee's Meetings, the Notification issued under S.10 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, Joint Venture Agreement and all subsequent developments including sanction or transfer of State land in favour of Pakistan Army were unlawful and of no legal effect and were accordingly set aside

High Court directed that all State land shall stand reverted to Government of Punjab, the Departments and persons as per its previous status; that Board of Revenue shall ensure compliance by amending revenue record, if required, and submit compliance report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of High Court; that office shall transmit certified copy of present Judgment to Federal Government through Secretary Cabinet Division; Secretary, Ministry of Defence; the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee; the COAS; the Chief of the Naval Staff; and the Chief of the Air Staff

High Court expected from Federation of Pakistan in concert with the afore-mentioned officers to evaluate all activities and projects of Armed Forces and if required, to take appropriate and necessary remedial steps to ensure that those were in conformity with the Constitutional and legal mandate of the Armed Forces

High Court also directed to take further necessary steps to sensitize each member of Armed Forces regarding the Constitutional and legal mandate of Armed Forces in the light of prescribed Oath in the Constitution and consequences arising from possible violations thereof, under the Constitution and law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners claimed that they were bona fide purchasers from the person in whose favour land had been allotted but subsequently the allotment was cancelled, therefore, they were entitled to purchase of land in question

Validity

Ejectment proceedings were initiated against petitioners and land was resumed in favour of State

Valid ejectment order was passed and executed against petitioners who were dispossessed, such lawful dispossession extinguished their every right if any attached with land in question

Claim of petitioners went out from the domain of S. 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

As per revenue record, petitioners were illegal occupants upon State land and they had no valid enforceable right under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Public property could not be doled upon any person through private treaty to extend favouritism, nepotism and for undue enrichment of individuals at the resources of public which were meant for ultimate welfare and betterment of people

Settlement authorities rightly directed to put land in question for disposal through unrestricted public auction giving first right of refusal to petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of auction of evacuee land by Board of Revenue on the plea that his application for purchase of land through private treaty was wrongly dismissed

Validity

Board of Revenue was empowered to dispose of such land/ex-evacuee rural agricultural land under a scheme to be prepared by Provincial Government

According to proviso to S.3(1)(b) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, only those persons who were occupying continuous possession over un-allotted/un-occupied ex-evacuee land for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973, were to be offered first right for sale to such occupant unless an order of ejectment had been passed against that occupant in respect of such land

Land in question was a public property which could not be doled upon any blue eyed person through private treaty to extend favouritism, nepotism and for undue enrichment of individuals at the resources of public, meant for ultimate welfare and betterment of people

Concerned authorities could dispose of such land through unrestricted public auction

Board of Revenue rightly dismissed application of petitioner as he did not fulfill criteria of S.3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

High Court declined to interfere in auction proceedings as petitioner failed to point out any perversity, illegality or any jurisdiction defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner claimed to be allottee of land in question and was aggrieved of order passed by Board of Revenue declaring the land as Government land

Validity

Exercise of extra ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution was intended for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action of an executive or other authority was floating on the surface, which could be established without any elaborate inquiry into the questions involved in the matter

Petitioner had no clear or undisputed title over land in question, which was a government land, for which petitioner claimed himself to be an allottee

Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of allotment of land in question to him

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or any jurisdictional defect in the order passed by Board of Revenue

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiffs, through suit for declaration, assailed order of Deputy Commissioner whereby he had held that mutation in favour of plaintiffs was sanctioned on the direction of incompetent authority

Trial Court and appellate court decreed the suit and dismissed the order of Deputy Commissioner

Validity

Notification issued by Secretary had addressed Assistant Commissioners to grant proprietary rights to all the occupants

Plaintiffs had, under the direction of the concerned Assistant Commissioner, deposited requisite cost/price

Deputy Commissionerhad passed a non-speaking and terse order without issuing any notice and hearing the plaintiffs

No evidence was available on record to establish that land in dispute was got allotted while committing fraud and forgery

Matter became a past and closed transaction after grant of proprietary rights and sanctioning of mutation

No legal infirmity was found in the concurrent findings of the courts below

Revision petition was dismissed.

Plaintiff had not mentioned the date or year when suit land was transferred or its possession was handed over to him by the concerned department

No person could be deemed to be a tenant or to have acquired any title, right or interest in State land in absence of written order of Collector concerned

Nothing was on record as to when the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff

No proof had been produced that plaintiff was put into possession on the suit land and he complied with the formalities which were prerequisite for allotment of land

Plaintiff had no proof of ownership with regard to land in question

Plaintiff had not come to the court within time

Suit was barred by limitation

No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Resumption order was passed on the ground that according to Cooperative Farming Scheme self cultivation was a pre-requisite condition for grant of proprietary rights

Plaintiff's occupation/ possession had been admitted to the extent of land measuring twenty kanals

Said chunk of land could not be resumed in any case

Allotment/conveyance deed to the extent of said land was a valid transfer and was to remain intact

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Suit filed against the petitioner-judgment debtor was decreed ex-parte and application for setting aside the said decree was dismissed

Petitioner assailed said orders in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Validity

Impugned judgment and decree passed in the civil suit was firstly challenged on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation through an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. but same was dismissed

Execution petition against the petitioner-judgment debtor had been allowed by the Executing Court

Petitioner moved another application under O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C. which was also dismissed

Petitioner had earlier filed constitutional petition against the order of Executing Court which was disposed of with the consent of both the parties

Present constitutional petition had been filed with same prayer which was mala fide of the petitioner

Constitutional jurisdiction could only be exercised in aid of justice and not for the purpose of promoting/ advancing injustice

One could not approbate and reprobate under the law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Custodian of Evacuee Property was a special tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction findings of which could not be nullified in exercise of writ jurisdiction until and unless some departure from any settled law or its violation was established or same was passed without jurisdiction

No such violation of law had been pointed out in the present case

Petitioner had abandoned his right of allotment while recording his statement during the proceedings of cancellation of earlier allotment

Said order was not challenged by the petitioner

Petitioner had managed to obtain further allotment and also applied for "Proprietary Rights Transfer Order"

Custodian of Evacuee Property took cognizance of the matter and cancelled the allotment declaring the same as illegal

Previously land measuring sixty four kanals was allotted in favour of petitioner and thereafter with his consent he got cancelled the allotment of land to the extent of twenty four kanals and sixteen marlas

Petitioner recorded his statement before the Custodian of Evacuee Property and stated that in lieu of cancelled land no other allotment be made in his favour

Petitioner, in circumstances, was not entitled to any further allotment of land

Subsequent allotment of land measuring twenty three kanals and two marlas in the name of petitioner was contrary to the order passed while cancelling the earlier allotment of land

Where allotment was made in violation of any law or without jurisdiction, Custodian of Evacuee Property was competent to cancel the same

Petitioner, in the present case, had not come to the Court with clean hands rather sought the protection of ill-gotten gain contrary to Court order

Presumption of correctness was attached to the official/judicial orders

Impugned judgment was based on sound reasons

No illegality or departure from any law had been pointed in the findings recorded by the Custodian of Evacuee Property

Writ could not be issued in favour of petitioner in circumstances.

Custodian of Evacuee Property while deciding review petition had not considered and discussed the averments of petitioners made in the review petition

Party had come forward with specific stand of concealment of facts, forged and fraudulent allotment

Affidavit in support of such contention had not been rebutted

If concealment of facts and fraud was alleged then limitation would have to be computed and start from the date when such concealment or fraud came into the knowledge of the concerned party

Concealment of facts and fraud were questions of fact which required probe and inquiry but same had not been attended by the Custodian of Evacuee Property

No limitation had been prescribed for application under S.18-B of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957

Custodian of Evacuee Property was vested with the powers in addition to general powers already vested in him including the holding of inquiry

Even Custodian of Evacuee Property while holding inquiry was vested with the powers of civil Court in certain matters

No bar on the Custodian of Evacuee Property existed under provision of S.43(6) of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 to exercise such powers on his own motion

Findings recorded by the Custodian of Evacuee Property were lacking the consideration of statutory provisions of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908 and suo motu powers under S.43(6) of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957

Findings recorded by the Custodian of Evacuee Property were not sustainable

Allottee of land in question was of nine years at the time of alleged allotment

Claim of allottee of the land as refugee was not correct

Findings had been recorded by the Custodian of Evacuee Property merely on examination of some record without apprising the parties or providing them opportunity to tender any explanation with regard to alleged document

Facts of the case required detailed inquiry

Custodian of Evacuee Property was bound to do complete justice in exercise of its powers for holding an inquiry

Impugned judgments passed by the High Court and Custodian of Evacuee Property were set aside

Custodian of Evacuee Property was directed by the Supreme Court to hold inquiry in the matter while providing the parties proper opportunity of producing the material and proof in support of their contentions and decide the controversy according to law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Contention of petitioners was that they were necessary party to the lis but they were neither impleaded nor any notice was issued to them while making allotment of land

Validity

Ouster clauses of Para 26 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 115) and S. 28 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 were with regard to such orders which were made in accordance with law

When an order was passed in colourful exercise of powers and in violation of norms of justice, same could not be immuned from the judicial scrutiny nor a subservient legislation could abridge the Constitutional powers of High Court

Article 199 of the Constitution could postulate to strike down those orders and performance of functions which had been done or taken without lawful authority

Any order passed in colourful exercise of powers or in violation of any statutory command was an order without jurisdiction

Authority or tribunals were vested with powers to decide the matters rightly or wrongly

Whenever a tribunal went wrong in law then it went outside its jurisdiction rendering its judgment/order as without lawful authority

Impugned orders of Federal Land Commission had been passed in derogation of statutory command and in violation of all norms of justice and they were amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Proper procedure had not been adopted for grant of land in question

Federal Land Commission without verification of claims and hearing the other side had passed the impugned orders which could not be countenanced nor approved by any Court of law

Things were required to be done in the manner provided by law or not at all

Impugned orders being coram non judice could be challenged before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Impugned orders had been passed in absence of all the interested parties who were going to be effected

Every tribunal or authority was bound to hear the other side before passing any order by which a party was going to be effected

Party going to be effected by the order had right of being heard before passing of such order

Every individual had right of fair trial both in civil as well as criminal proceedings

No concept of fair trial existed in absence of right of hearing or right of defence

Chairman Federal Land Commission had not only violated the principle of 'audi alteram partem, but also transgressed the Fundamental Right of the petitioners enshrined in Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Any order passed in violation of the provision of statute and in derogation of a guarantee enshrined in an Article of the Constitution was liable to be struck down being made or passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Impugned orders passed by the Federal Land Commission were set aside and mutations attested on the basis thereof were cancelled

Cases were remitted to Chief Land Commissioner with the direction to probe and verify the claims subject to declaration of Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court

Commission should hear all the interested parties and decide the matter within specified time

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Residents of the village had filed suit earlier with regard to the suit property but plaint of the same was rejected by the Trial Court

Petitioner had neither mentioned the said earlier litigation in the present Constitutional Petition nor his counsel disclosed the same during course of his arguments

Non-disclosure of earlier litigation was concealment of facts

Such conduct of petitioner was sufficient to disentitle him to the grant of discretionary relief in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner was bound to show his locus standi and establish his legal right over the suit land

Petitioner had raised disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had nothing but unauthorized possession of suit property

Petitioner had no locus standi over the suit property

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.

Allottee or lessee was required to remain in possession for 45 year to acquire right of ownership and fulfilled the requirement as determined by Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 1988

Plaintiffs could not claim ownership rights on the basis of such transfer as it could not create ownership/title in favour of so called transferee and subsequent purchaser

Lessee/allottee could not sublet, mortgage and transfer in any manner the leased land

Allotments/transfers in question were in violation of Balochistan Land Lease Policy, 1988 which stood automatically cancelled

Seller could not transfer a title better than that he himself had

Original allottees were neither owner nor could have transferred any ownership and title to the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs could not claim to be bona fide purchasers when illegal allotment/lease stood refundable

Plaintiffs had got no locus standi to call in question the orders passed by the competent authority with regard to terms and conditions of an allotment/lease

Revision was dismissed with costs throughout in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of decision made by Board of Revenue whereby they were asked to pay price of land at current market price plus 50% penalty

Validity

Petitioners might be in possession of land in question since 1972 as pleaded by them but date of possession was not at all relevant to determine market price of land rather it was date of submission of application intimating intention to exercise option for purchase of land

Petitioners were estopped by their conduct to claim fixation of price of land other than the market price, for they themselves had agreed to purchase land in question by making payment at market price before High Court earlier on 26-3-1991, when a compromise deed was filed which was signed and thumb marked by all petitioners and was available on record of High Court

No illegality or irregularity was noticed in order passed by Board of Revenue

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

When plaintiff did not appear as his witness at the time of affirmative evidence and his statement was recorded after the evidence of defendant then said statement could only be read as rebuttal evidence and not as affirmative evidence

Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on the evidence available on record

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were in violation of procedure provided under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Appellate Court was required to record issue-wise findings or to frame point for determination

Neither findings had been recorded issue-wise nor point for determination had been framed

Judgment passed by the Appellate Court was defective

Nothing was available on record as to when suit land was allotted/adjusted in favour of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had not produced any evidence to prove that impugned order had been passed by the revenue authorities or mutation in favour of defendant was against the facts and was illegal

Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not sustainable under the law

Plaintiffs had failed to prove their case as pleaded by them

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff could not get decree of possession without a mechanism provided under Ss.32 & 34 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Trial Court had not passed a specific decree rather a contingent decree for possession was passed subject to allotment of land by the Revenue authorities

Decree passed by the Trial Court was not a judicial verdict as Court was to pass a specific decree without any ambiguity

Revision was dismissed circumstances.

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revisions were dismissed in circumstances.

Provincial Government was aggrieved of order passed by Federal Land Commission, whereby land was not allotted to Forest department without settlement of claims of tenants of land in question

Plea raised by Provincial Government was that Federal Land Commission could not exercise suo motu powers after 31-11-1976

Validity

Allotment and cancellation in exercise of suo motu revisional powers was governed under Land Reforms Act, 1977 which sets the order of preference for utilization of surrendered land

Such land was granted under S. 15(1) of Land Reforms Act, 1977, to tenants who were in cultivation possession of land during Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1975-76 crops

Land which was not granted under S. 15(1)(2) of Land Reforms Act, 1977, the same was to be granted to other landless tenants or person owning less than twelve acres

Claims of tenants of that land, that of other tenants and other persons had to be satisfied first before considering utilization of land vested in government for some public purpose

Purpose of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 was to improve economic wellbeing of peasantry by making agriculture a profitable vocation

Order passed by Federal Land Commission, setting aside the order of Deputy Land Commissioner, directing the authority to proceed for grant of land to tenants and other deserving persons was in conformity with law

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by Federal Land Commission

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioner was that notice/order demanding differential value calculated on the basis of market value issued by the Government was without lawful authority and jurisdiction

Validity

Petitioner executed indemnity bond to indemnify the Development Authority against all losses or damages if any that might be occasioned to the Authority by transfer of suit property

Petitioner had not approached the committee constituted for determination of differential value rather insisted that he could not be penalized for no fault on his part having acquired vested right in the property after completing all the required formalities under the existing rules

Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001 was promulgated to bring at par all the allotments or exchanges of urban State land at the market value to save government exchequer from colossal losses incurred at the hands of political and other allied forces

No remedy provided under the said Ordinance had been availed by the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioners was that land in question was allotted in favour of respondent who was also included in the family of his father

Validity

Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders had been issued after due process

Petitioners could challenge vires of impugned allotments and Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders (PRTO) by filing an application before the Custodian of Evacuee Property

Petitioners could file review petition before the Custodian to challenge the same

Petitioners had filed present multiple application to frustrate the judgments of superior courts with un-clean hands which was not maintainable

Multiple Application was dismissed in circum-stances.

Custodian of Evacuee Property dismissed review petition on the ground that limitation for filing the same was 30 days but writ petition was accepted by the High Court

Validity

If an application for review was filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property then same had to be made within a prescribed period

If Custodian of Evacuee Property felt necessary to review his own order or the order of his predecessor at his own then he was at liberty to review the order at any time after giving notice to the concerned party and Rehabilitation Authority as the justice of the case might require

Limitation for filing review petition was 30 days

Review was not filed within limitation before the Custodian of Evacuee Property which was time barred and was correctly dismissed

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and that of Custodian of Evacuee Property was restored

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Custodian was a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction whose findings of facts could not be challenged through writ petition

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, being claimant displaced person, was allotted an area measuring 36-Kanals under Settlement Scheme No.1, out of property measuring 54-Kanals, by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, with the condition that the allottee, would surrender the excess area, which was more than three times of built up area

Subsequently, the petitioner purchased said area, as well, but possession was handed over to the petitioner to the extent of 20-Kanals only and possession of remaining area was not handed over to the petitioner, who requested that said area could also be allotted and handed over to him

Ownership of the petitioner regarding said remaining land, remained intact in revenue record i.e. Register Haqdaran Zamin till the year 1969-70, but at the time of preparation of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1973-74, the ownership of the petitioner was deleted without mentioning any reference/order

According to the provisions of Ss.166 & 172(2)(vi) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, correction of wrong/clerical mistakes in the revenue record, was the subject matter of District Revenue Authorities

District Collector as Custodian of the revenue record of whole District, was competent and responsible to keep the record maintained in its true form at all times

Correction of such entries fell within the domain of said authority

Old or new wrong entries in the revenue record, which were found having no base, could be corrected at any time

Additional District Collector, was directed to proceed with the case of the petitioner, according to the provisions of S.172(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and redress the grievance of the petitioner and pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner.

Chief Settlement Commissioner, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court dated 2-10-1990, whereby displaced persons were held entitled for accommodation, issued directions to the District Collector for allotment of suitable land to accommodate displaced persons, including the petitioners, on the available land

Petitioners had sought implementation of said direction of Chief Settlement Commissioner and requested that allotment in pursuance of said order be ordered to be made

Perusal of said order of Chief Settlement Commissioner showed that allotment had been ordered to be made under Katchi Abadi Scheme

For allotment under such scheme, the Government of Punjab vide memorandum had constituted Committee at District level

Matter had already been referred to District Collector, who could take further necessary action as required under the law and in the light of assertion made by Government counsel before Supreme Court.

Plaintiff had filed declaratory suit, whereby he challenged an agreement to sell, being against law, liable to be set aside

None of the allottees falling under four categories as mentioned in S.4 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Chhamb Area Administration and Development Act, 1976, had power to transfer, sell or alienate the land or portion thereof to any person from the land allotted to them as no sale was permissible under the scheme of said Act

Only those persons had right to remain in possession in whose favour the allotment had been made under S.4 of said Act

Allottee had no right to transfer or alienate the land allotted under the Act

Agreement to sell executed by the allottee of agricultural land was not a legal document, in circumstances.

Factual controversy existed between the parties which could not be decided by the High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had neither any locus standi nor legal character to file the present constitutional petition

Petitioner was not aggrieved person to invoke the constitutional jurisdictional of High Court and no resolution had been passed by the department authorizing him to file the said petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners contended that disputed evacuee piece of land was allotted in favour of their grandmother and after the death of their grandmother the land in question was inherited in favour of their father and after father's death they were owners and allottees of the land in dispute

Petitioners further contended that respondent fraudulently got illegal allotment permit regarding disputed land

Respondent produced a certified copy of thirty years old statement of petitioner's grandmother whereby she had voluntarily excluded her name from the allotment

Custodian of Evacuee Property relied on the statement of grandmother of petitioners and dismissed the review petition

Validity

Grandmother of petitioners had appeared before the Authority and made a categorical statement that the land in dispute may be allotted to elder brother of her husband, grandfather of the private respondent by excluding her name from allotment

Grandmother of petitioners had also stated that allotment was not yet issued in her favour in accordance with law

Respondents produced certified copy of statement of grandmother of petitioners which was thirty years old document

Certified copy of thirty years old statement had got presumption of truthfulness

Custodian of Evacuee Property on the basis of statement, had rightly negated the claim of petitioners

Writ petition was dismissed.

Allotment of respondent was challenged by the petitioners, before Custodian of Evacuee Property, after about forty six years

Petitioners filed review petition sixteen years after issuance of Proprietary Rights Certificate

Petitioners contended that they came to know about allotment and Certificate two weeks ago therefore review petition could not be dismissed as being time-barred

Custodian of Evacuee Property dismissed the review petition

Validity

Petitioners and respondents were living in the same vicinity and also close relatives

Land in dispute was also situated in the neighbourhood of petitioners

No plausible explanation was given for such long inordinate delay

Petitioners were obliged to give each day's explanation of delay extended over more than four and half decades

Review petition could be filed within thirty days from the date of passing of an order by Custodian of Evacuee Property

Custodian of Evacuee Property rightly dismissed the review petition, in circumstances

Writ petition was dismissed.

Custodian of Evacuee Property had recorded findings of facts that allotment of property in dispute was made in favour of respondents

Custodian had dismissed the application of petitioner for cancellation of allotment

Validity

Findings of facts recorded by the Custodian being a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction which were ordinarily sacrosanct and no exceptional circumstances were involved in the case, High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could not embark upon an inquiry of facts like omission to sue and commission of fraud

Writ petition was dismissed.

Land measuring 1 Kanal, 17 marlas, was entered in the name of "Thakar Dwara", a place reserved for religious purpose by non-muslim

Out of the said land, 12 marlas was under the possession of the appellants, and remaining piece of land was allotted to a Bank by Rehabilitation authorities

Appellants filed application before the Custodian of Evacuee Property under S.18-B of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, on the ground that Evacuee Land could not be allotted to the Co-operative Bank

Said application was dismissed

Validity

Appellants had claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, was in possession of the said evacuee land for 35 years and had challenged the allotment of land to Co-operative Bank

Custodian of Evacuee Property, after getting approval from the Government, had transferred the property to Co-operative Bank, through a sale-deed, which was quite in line

Appellants on the one hand had claimed that 'Thakar Dawara', which was a land reserved for religious purpose, could not be allotted to any person and that allotment in favour of bank was unlawful; on the other hand, they claimed themselves entitled to the allotment of said land as local destitute, which was clear contradiction on their part

Appellants had failed to prove that they were aggrieved by any act of the Custodian of Evacuee Property or the Government

Nothing was on record to support the claim of the appellants

Writ petition could be entertained only on the application of the aggrieved person

Appellants being not aggrieved persons, their writ petition was rightly dismissed by High Court.

Allotment of lands-"First come first served" principle should be observed.