Evacuee Land
Evacuee Land legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
In the present case, civil courts below committed material irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction with respect to evacuee property
High Court in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 held that Courts below lacked jurisdiction and rejected the plaint in exercise of powers under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C
Revision petition was allowed in circumstances with the direction that the parties may, if advised, approach appropriate authorities, having jurisdiction to determine and decide their rights, claims and respective obligations.
Issue of determination of price of evacuee land and question of enforcement of conditional allotment of evacuee land were beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court
Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed to decide claim of partition or compensation (in the alternative) involving evacuee land
Perusal of settlement laws as applicable before promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 ('the Act of 1975'), and the Act of 1975 itself showed that authority to decide the price of the evacuee land was vested in the Custodian/Chief Land Commissioner or its successor, i.e. Notified Officer.
Primary condition is that land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 should first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land
Such is condition precedent to be met before determination of purchase price and other requirements.
Plea raised by defendant was that suit filed by plaintiff before civil court was barred under S. 25 of Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1958
Validity
Mutation of inheritance was attested by Settlement authorities, whereunder both sons of deceased land owner were given their due shares
Such entries were duly carried to Jamabandi (Record of Rights) for years, 1956-57, but thereafter the same were unauthorizedly changed without any order of competent authority
Ouster of jurisdiction under S. 25 of Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1958, was not absolute
Plaintiff did not challenge any order of Settlement Authority rather his grievance was that after attestation of mutation under the orders of competent authorities, entries in revenue record were illegally changed and such fact was established on record beyond any doubt
Concurrent findings of courts of competent jurisdiction on the question of fact could not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C.
Judgments and decrees passed by two courts below did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Petitioner claimed to be transferee for valuable consideration from original allottee, who was allotted land in lieu of claim of his predecessor
Plea of respondent being in possession of land was that such allotment was result of fraud and misrepresentation as per revenue record issued by Indian Revenue Authorities and attested by Pakistan High Commission, predecessor of original allottee had never migrated to Pakistan and he died in India on 26-12-1991
Cancellation of such allotment by Chief Settlement Commissioner after consulting Revenue and Settlement Department's records and conducting inquiry by holding that same was based on bogus and fabricated orders as no person by name of original allottee existed and that person by name of original allottee or his predecessor had never migrated to Pakistan
Validity
Settlement Authority could interfere with allotment order procured by playing fraud and misrepresentation
Order procured by fraud could simply be ignored when pressed into service
Authority having passed an order would be entitled to vary, amend, add to or rescind same
Transactions in name of original allottee or petitioner had no sanctity in law
Impugned order was legal
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
Order of Chief Settlement Commissioner (CSC) passed on recommendations of Notified Officer allowing petitioner to purchase land on payment of its price
Recalling of such order by Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his power of review under S.21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 after coming to know that land being urban in nature was not available for sale to petitioner
Validity
Record showed that petitioner remained in possession of land as its bona fide purchaser, from its original allottee and was not privy to any fraud
Notified Officer in such circumstances had recommended sale of land to petitioner to regularize his long standing possession
Neither department nor any body else had put forward plea of fraud for being not available in present case
If other persons placed in similar position had been allowed benefit of sale in same village, then petitioner could not be made to suffer and dealt with discriminately for being impermissible in law
Such other persons were still enjoying benefit of Scheme, but only petitioner had been chosen for purpose of reviewing order
Chief Settlement Commissioner for having no power of review had exceeded his jurisdiction while passing impugned order-,-Petitioner had developed land by spending hard manual labour and huge expenses
Fundamental duty of an Islamic State would be to provide bread and butter to its subjects
No useful purpose would be served in upsetting petitioner as land if became available after upholding impugned order, then same would surely be either allotted to someone else or disposed of under any other Scheme
High Court declared impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Dismissal of earlier constitutional petition of Revenue Department was not per incuriam and was binding upon both parties, who were bound to implement same in letter and spirit
High Court disposed of constitutional petition in such terms.
Plaintiff claimed to have purchased land from its allottee, thus, its cancellation by authority and further transfer in favour of defendant was illegal
Application by plaintiff for grant of interim injunction for maintenance of status quo qua his possession
Defendant's plea was that authority passed such order in compliance of judgment of Supreme Court holding the Chief Settlement Commissioner had validly restrained allotment of Forest land
Dismissal of application by Trial Court and Appellate Court
Validity
Question as to whether allotment. in favour of predecessor of plaintiff fell within mischief of such judgment o[ Supreme Court would require determination of some factual aspect i.e. whether land was lawfully acquired for Forest Department or was lawfully declared or reserved/protected for Forest
Effect of such order of Chief Settlement Commissioner would be determined during course of trial
Plaintiff being in possession of land would suffer, an irreparable loss in case injunction prayed for was refused
Balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff
High Court set aside impugned orders and directed parties to maintain status quo till decision of suit.
Evacuee Land Revenue Officer and Revenue Court competent to proceed in respect of evacuee land under ordinary Revenue Law after confirmation of transfer.
"Evacuee Land", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21920
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Evacuee Land"
1989SCMR108
AMEER HUSSAIN and others — Appellants Versus AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: ---S. 2--Term "evacuee land"--Meaning, scope and import of--Term, "evacuee land" had been given an extended meaning by insertion of words "including any land, plot or vacant site allotted, transferred or otherwise disposed of by Chief Settlement Commissioner or any other authority under either the Act or any other law for the time being in force"--Notifications for declaring any evacuee property as Katchi Abadi being subsequent to date from which extended meaning have been given to term "evacuee land", same could not be deemed as having ceased to be evacuee property on its inclusion in compensation pool and subsequent transfer to respondent on permanent basis as it takes care of the land which could be termed as Katchi Abadi despite the fact that it stood permanently transferred--No illegality could, therefore, be attached to the declaration of land as Katchi Abadi by notification.--Words and phrases.1994 S C M R 395
Mst. SARDAR BEGUM‑‑‑Appellant Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,LAHORE
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2019 C L C 1584
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, through Director General and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD AMMAR JILLANI KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)1983 C L C 2527
MOHABBAT ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: Lahore1999 M L D 1347
BAQA MUHAMMAD KHAN — Appellant Versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&KP L D 1994 Azad J & K 90
LIAQUAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY OF AJ&K, MUZAFFARABAD and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 6‑A added by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation (Amendment) Act, 1974‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Art.44‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Order No. 25/60 dated 11‑1‑1960‑‑‑Allotment of evacuee property ‑‑‑Essentials‑‑‑Allotment‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Purpose of Government Order No. 25/60 dated 11‑1‑1960, whereby possession of evacuee property was regulated, was that fruits of allotment must reach to the refugees, notwithstanding possession of allotted property being in the hands of others‑‑‑Where, however, any person out of the category of the persons mentioned in the Government Order No. 25/60 dated 11‑1‑1960 was in possession of land which was not allotted to any refugee, and same was not exceeding the limit provided by Government Order, possession of that person was not to be disturbed‑‑‑Allotment in the name of petitioner as a local destitute could not be deemed illegal for the sole reason that he was not in possession of evacuee land‑‑‑Embargo mentioned in S. 6‑A, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Act, 1956 and Government Order No. 25/60, dated 11‑1‑1960, would apply where a destitute not in possession of evacuee land was seeking allotment of land in possession of a person who was equally entitled to, qualified for and claiming the allotment of that land‑‑‑In absence of any such claim, provisions of Ss. 6 & 6‑A, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation Act, 1956, would be read to mean that categories of persons mentioned in Government Order No.25/60 dated 11‑1‑1960, had the similar right of allotment as a refugee had against a person, who had no such right or had an inferior right‑‑‑Once a person was found destitute and was allotted the land under said circumstances, he was entitled to possession, as a refugee would have been under the relevant laws‑‑‑Allotment in the name of petitioner as a destitute thus, could not be cancelled at the behest of a person who had inferior right than that of petitioner‑‑‑Land in question, was restored in the name of petitioner in circumstances.1986 C L C 1305
MUHAMMAD SAGHIR KHAN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ENFORCEMENT STAFF, AZAD J & K,
Court: Azad J & K2019 C L C Note 18
ABDUR RASHID (DECEASED) through LRs and others — Appellants Versus Mst. SULTANA BEGUM and others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1977 Lahore 735
AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 13 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: High Court2022 C L C 414
Malik ALLAH DITTA and others — Appellants Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE/(JUDICIAL-V)/ CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/NOTIFIED OFFICER, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore