Land Settlement

Main objective of land settlement is to formalize and make a record of actual facts, recognizing ownership rights, title, interest and liabilities of indigenous humans over unsettled lands they physically possess, utilize and have control over

Through settlement proceedings, authorities prepare a record of right for fiscal purposes enabling government to assess revenue and taxes to be collected from the produce of land owners concerned

Process includes preparation of pedigree of tribes and sub-tribes, recognize and record water and grazing rights of tribes and sub-tribes, prepare maps and demarcate lands for public purpose, such as graveyard, mosques, educational buildings and other amenities

For the purpose of conducting settlement, the settlement authorities also follow principles reflected in Para-I of Chapter-1 (introductory) of Punjab Settlement Manual (1930)

Book-II of the Manual relates to Record of Rights and Chapt. VIII of the Manual is about tenure and rights of land owners

Settlement Authorities follow these provisions while conducting settlement proceedings.

After creation of Pakistan, the British Balochistan and Balochistan Agency merged its sovereignty into Pakistan and came under its administrative control but land owners did not surrender their collective or individual rights of ownership of their properties to State, that is why after creation of Pakistan, lands which were recorded by the Britishers on the names of private persons either collectively or individually, were renamed on their names, whereas only the properties recorded in the name of British Administration, were transferred on the name of Central Government and subsequently, after establishment of the Provinces, it was transferred on the name of Provincial Government, but still most of the land in the Province is unsettled

Whenever land was required for the establishment of Government buildings for amenities purpose like District Administration Offices, Courts, buildings, school buildings, hospitals and roads etc., Federal or Provincial Government used to acquire lands subject to compensation or through gift or upon certain terms and conditions from land owners concerned, considering them as owners irrespective of the fact that the lands were settled or unsettled

Provision of S.50(1) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 speaks about two specific dates i.e. 18-11-1871 and 17-07-1879 and only in respect of territories where Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1897 and Sindh Land Revenue Code, 1879 were so enforced

Provision of Land Revenue Act, 1967, is time bound and pertains to limited areas, where the earlier enactments were so enforced

By or before 18-11-1871 and 17-07-1879 none of the three enactments were enforced in British Balochistan and Balochistan Agency, therefore, provision of S. 50(1) of Land Revenue Act, 1967, was not made applicable to the Province of Balochistan

For such reasons, while taking over charge of the two areas, the British Administration did not claim ownership of unsettled lands, rather accepted indigenous tribes as owners of the same

Most of the lands were claimed by landowners concerned as rightful owners and such lands could not be considered as ownerless properties

Inhabitants of different tribes and sub-tribes were presumed to be owners of their respective lands

Government always required land for public purposes such as education, health, research, sports, parks, dams, water supply schemes, mosques, graveyards and other amenities purposes

Government was required to earmark reasonable land only for such purposes during the course of settlement proceedings

Presumption of ownership as provided by S. 50 (2) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 with regard to unsettled land was in favour of land owners concerned

High Court asked the Government to conduct settlement proceedings to prepare record of rights and to continue settlement proceedings periodically, in accordance with law

Government could frame policies, introduce land reforms and make enactments to deal with land issues, accordingly

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Leave to appeal granted to consider whether High Court had not applied its mind to the fact that the appellant was a claim holder of a Chak and had preference over respondent who got his claim transferred to this Chak.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention inter alia that findings recorded by Chief Settlement Commissioner were vitiated because they rested mainly on facts mentioned in earlier order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner relating to date of proposal and confirmation in favour of predecessor-in-interest of one Respondent without realising that said facts had never been established after contest and were nothing more than mere assumptions and that High Court had also overlooked this aspect of matter.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions raised on behalf of petitioner-Provincial Government (i) that land in dispute did not form part of Compensation Pool and could not be transferred to respondents; (ii) that High Court was not right in holding that no proceedings were pending at time of repeal of evacuee laws and that Settlement Commissioner had any bias in matter; and (iii) that it was not a fit case where High Court should have interfered with order of Settlement Commissioner as transfers obtained

Examination of record indicating irregularities on part of Revenue/ Settlement staff which would not attract presumption of correctness of official acts and proceedings of cancellation based on misreading of report submitted by subordinate staff

Order of cancellation having been passed without notice to respondents in violation of rules of natural justice

High Court's view that failure of Settlement functionaries to perform their legal obligations could not be construed as a circumstance against respondents, affirmed by Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal being devoid of merit, dismissed.

Order impugned on ground that plot was being used for purposes subservient to agriculture and as such it was land within meaning of Rehabilitation Scheme

Revenue records produced by petitioners themselves also going against their contention

Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

High Court having found that Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel allotment, declined to give relief to petitioner on ground that claim of petitioner did not appear to be genuine and that it was unusual that a claimant should be given such a large allotment in an urban area

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that High Court should have quashed order of cancellation passed without jurisdiction and that it erred in declining to give relief to petitioner merely on conjectural assumptions.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that High Court while depriving petitioners of land equivalent to 130 units had unjustifiably placed an untenable interpretation on order of Settlement Commissioner which was not interfered with at any stage nor even challenged by respondents although unsuccessfully challenged by petitioners themselves before Settlement Commissioner, High Court and Supreme Court.

Parties compromising to the effect that matter be referred to Notified Officer to ascertain as to whether respondents had pending claim for adjustment of area in dispute and if so, order of restoration of their allotment shall stand intact, otherwise land being available in possession of petitioners may be offered to them for sale in accordance with law

Notified Officer finding that respondents had pending verified claims, ordered restoration of disputed land to them

Petitioner again assailed this finding in writ jurisdiction alleging that earlier allotments of respondents were result of interpolation and fraud

Such

Held, area in dispute should have been given to appellant as per directions of Additional Settlement Commissioner.

Petitioners' application for its cancellation/transfer in their favour dismissed by Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) and upheld in revision on grounds that property was not available and also for lack of jurisdiction

Administrator (R.P.) observing that allotment of factory against agricultural units being irregular action ought to be taken by Government against same

Supreme Court rejected petition observing that petitioners' remedy was to approach Board of Revenue

Allotment was quite irregular

High Court's order declining to interfere in writ jurisdiction, upheld

Leave to appeal refused.

Contrary observations recorded by Chief Settlement Commissioner due to misrepresentation made by legal heirs of respondent

Chief Settlement Commissioner omitted to notice respondents' own admission, did not make enquiry nor dealt with findings recorded in that behalf by lower Settlement authorities

Order passed without hearing appellant

Finding of Settlement Commissioner on that point and of High Court vitiated

Supreme Court after detailed examination of record allowed appeal with costs.

Finding of fact substituted by High Court based on report not mentioned in impugned order of Chief Settlement Commissioner

Jurisdiction of High Court being confined to question of law, did not extend to controversial questions of fact

Questions of law may be involved if there be misreading of certain documents and where documents having presumption of correctness were not given that presumption or an inference manifestly against record was drawn

There being no misreading of record or drawing an incorrect inference from admitted facts a substitutive order, held, could not be passed in revisional jurisdiction under S. 21 of Act (XLVII of 1958)

Judgment of High Court set aside and appeal accepted.

Disputed letter not produced before Inquiry Officer or before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction but subsequently produced before Division Bench of High Court (Intra-Court Appeal)

Plea that High Court could not substitute its findings arrived at on basis of new evidence, for finding reached by departmental forum . not sustained

Order was set aside there being no evidence to support finding of forgery

Finding of fact given by subordinate Court, Tribunal or other Authority could be interfered with if it was based on no evidence or was based on a complete misreading of evidence.

Held: Where allotments had been made on different dates, Settlement Authority would certainly be justified in cancelling allotments made subsequent to satisfaction of allottees claim, but where entire allotment was made at one time and land so allotted remained with allottee for a sufficiently long period so as to justify assertion that he had developed same at considerable expense and labour, it would be in fitness of things to allow him choice as to which area of land he would surrender

Denial of choice would partake of a punitive incidence which is not intention of law

Surrender of excess area must be, as far as possible, in a compact block.

Being valid and in defeasible entitlement, held, could not be interfered with at belated stage of leave granting be-Fore Supreme Court.

Plea that petitioners' application could be entertained under general law so as to treat allotment a nullity, repelled on ground that Settlement Commissioner had no general jurisdiction to make such declaration

Function of department being only for a specified field which includes jurisdiction to deal with pending cases but not to entertain fresh application under S. 10/11

High Court's order upheld

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.