Rana JAHANDAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 6 Other
The matter arises from a dispute over a parcel of land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas situated in Chak No. 54/2-L, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal, which was initially confirmed in the petitioner's favour as agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the disputed property qualified as 'land' under the relevant settlement laws or as urban property ('ghair mumkin abadi') subject to transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Lahore High Court held that the property was ghair mumkin abadi used for commercial or residential purposes and not for agricultural purposes, thereby setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order and upholding its transfer to the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's finding of fact based on a correct appreciation of the record was unexceptionable, and rendered the initial agricultural allotment legally invalid as a bar against the respondents' transfer. The key principle laid down is that properties recorded as ghair mumkin abadi without evidence of agricultural use cannot be treated as agricultural land for settlement purposes.
- Whether a property recorded as ghair mumkin abadi without evidence of agricultural use can be classified as land for agricultural transfer under settlement laws?
- Can an initial invalid allotment of property as agricultural land serve as a bar to the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Sections 10 and 11, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The dispute between the parses relates to1 kanal 10 marlas of land, out of Khasra No. 5/1, measuring 3 kanals and 5 marlas of Square No. 19, situated in Chak No. 54/2--L, Tellisil Okara, District Sahiwal. This entire area was confirmed in petitioner's favour. In series of litigation between the parties, the case finally came up before Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 109-R of 1969 filed by respondents 1 to 5. Learned Single Judge in the High Court after perusal of the record dismissed the petition by the judgment dated 15-9-1975 for the reasons that may be stated in his own words as under: "I do not see how by any stretch of imagination the khasra in dispute could be regarded as land. As already mentioned in the Jamabandi ands for the year 1946-47 its nature was given as ghair mumkinabadi it was also recorded that the original owner had let out the khasra to two persons on monthly rents of Rs. 30 and Rs. 20-4-0. There is no evidence whatsoever that after 1946-47, it was used for agricultural purposes subservient to agriculture. In the subsequent jamabandi too it has been shown as ghair mumkin abadi. The assertion of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that on the eve of Partition there was an Ahataon the khasra which was used for agricultural purposes is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. In fact its proximity to the civic centre tends to indicate that the structures existing on it were intended for commercial purposes. However that may lie, there is no evidence whatsoever, that the structure found upon it on the eve of Partition had anything to do with agriculture. Consequently the finding of the learned Settlement Commissioner that the Khasra in question fell within the definition of land is without any foundation at all."
2. On this view of the case, learned Single Judge upheld the transfer of the property in respondents' favour under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, and set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28-12-1968 by which transfer of the property as agricultural land in petitioner's favour was confirmed.
3. Choudhary Muhammad Hassan, learned counsel appearing in supports of this petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that the 'respondents were not successful in earlier round of litigation in appeal and revision, and they were therefore precluded from re opening the case through proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
4. On a querry whether the petitioner can legitimately challenge the correctness of the finding of the High Court that the land in dispute is ghair mumkin abadi. Situated next residential and commercial areas within the Municipal limits of Okara, learned counsel was not in a position to urge anything. Since the High Court has reached the finding of fact on correct) appreciation of the record, no exception can be taken with the view the Prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court. On the factual position found by the High Court, since the initial order of allotment o property as agricultural land isrendered as contrary' to law, it cannot serve as a bar to the transfer of the property in respondents' favour validly made) under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
5. Leave is therefore refused, and the petition dismissed in limine.