FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD LIAQAT AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the cancellation and revival of competing claim forms and land allotments under refugee rehabilitation laws. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the allotment of disputed land validly transferred to respondents through an intermediate allottee, following the conditional revival of the petitioner's earlier claim form. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly maintained the respondents' allotment as they could not be prejudiced by the subsequent administrative proceedings, especially where the petitioner had alternative remedies such as seeking cash compensation or pursuing allotment where originally applied. The key principle laid down is that bona fide third-party allottees who acquire land through due process should not be displaced by subsequent administrative revisions of conflicting claim forms, leaving the aggrieved claimant to pursue alternative statutory remedies for land or compensation.
- Whether bona fide allottees of land can be deprived of their property due to the subsequent revival of a conflicting claim form?
- Is an allottee entitled to retain land validly allotted through due process when previous administrative cancellations are later set aside?
- Can a claimant whose earlier land allotment is affected by administrative revisions seek alternative remedies such as cash compensation or allotment elsewhere?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J. The facts of this case briefly stated are that one Abdullah son of Freeda, a claimant displaced person, died in Chunian where he was settled after migration from India. He was allotted land in Qilla Sardar Attar Singh, Tehsil P.Halian, District Gujrat on the basis of Fard-a Haqiat issued to hire in lieu o; Claim Form No. 176. The petitioner is said to have filed Claim Form No. 47663 on 12-5-1954 in Tehsil Chunian in respect of the land abandoned by the aforesaid Abdullah in India. Since the area which was previously verified on Claim Form No. 176 was again verified on Claim Form No. 47662, the former Claim Form was cancelled by the Central Record Office. The order cancelling Claim Form No. 176 was set aside by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 753- R of 1971 on 5-3-1972 with the direction that the case be decided afresh in accord--ance with the Law.
2. On remand, the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office upheld the Claim Form No. 176 and cancelled the Claim No. 47663 by the order dated 28-6-1973.
3. Since, in the meantime the allotment of land in the name of Fateh Muhammad on the basis of Claim Form No. 176 was set aside due to the cancellation of that Form, and the land was then allotted to one Noora son of Kallu on 2-10-1971 and he subsequently transferred the same to the Respondents 1 to 7 herein, by way of that, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 609-R of 1973 in the Lahore high. Court seeking to challenge the order of the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Lahore dated 28-6-1973 by which Claim Form No. 176 was revived. Their plea in support of the Writ Petition was that the petitioner was not entitled to the revival of the allotment of land which had earlier been cancelled. This plea was accepted the learned Single Judge in the High Court on the ground that the respondents cannot be penalised, for, the action of re-cancellation was not on account of their efforts but in due process of law, and that "Fateh Muhammad was entitled to allotment in Chunian and having failed in his attempt in securing the allotment, he flied application for cash compensation for the land of Abdullah son of Feeds, photostat copy of which is placed on the record. In view of the situation the petitioners (respondents 1 to 7 herein) cannot be deprived of the land allotted to them . . . . . Fateh Muhammad may get cash compensation or secure allotment in Chunian where he submitted his original form".
4. Mr. Talib Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for specialleave to appeal from the judgments of the High Court petitioner cannot be deprived of the property which has been previously acquired by him. He further submits that the petitioner had never tiled a claim in Chunian nor had he over applied for cash compensation for Claim Form No. 47663, he had, however, applied, for cash compensation a respect of certain surplus P. I. Units but even this request was rejected.
5. After having gone through the record of the case, we find that the High Court has rightly maintained the allotment of the disputed land in favour of the respondence on the ground that the land was validly allotted to their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Noora son of Kalim. According to the findings of fact reached by the learned Single Judge in the High Court the petitioner had claimed allotment of Land in Chunian, and that he had filedapplication for cash compensation for land of Abdullah son of Feeda, It is totally unnecessary in these proceedings to determine the question whether the petitioner had filed Claim Form No. 47663 of not, or that the petitioner had sought for allotment of land in Chunian or elsewhere, for, the determination of these questions has no bearing on the right of the respondent in respect of the allotment of the land which has been upheld by the High Court on sound principles of law.
6. If the petitioner is entitled to allotment of land or cash compensation on the basis of the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty dated 28-6-197 revalidating the Claim Form No. 176 and cancelling Claim Form . No. 47663, it is yet open to him to approach the relevant quarters in that behalf.
7. For these reasons no exception can be taken with the view that has pre--vailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court. The petition is dismissed in llmine.