ISMAIL vs BARKAT ALI AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents, declaring the subsequent allotment of agricultural land in the petitioner's favor to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question was whether the disputed land, which had been previously allotted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest in satisfaction of a verified claim, was available for fresh allotment to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the predecessor-in-interest had transferred her entire claim to another district, thereby releasing the land. However, the Supreme Court found that the factual findings of the Settlement Commissioner contradicted this, showing that only a portion of the claim was transferred while the disputed land remained settled in the estate. The Supreme Court held that since the land had been validly allotted earlier and was not available, the subsequent allotment to the petitioner was invalid. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether land already allotted to a claimant in satisfaction of a verified claim can be validly re-allotted to another person as available land?
- Does the partial transfer of a claimant's verified units to another district render the land already settled in the original district available for fresh allotment?
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner, an allottee of agricultural land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-4-1975 whereby a constitutional petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 7 was allowed and the allotment in petitioner's favour was held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Khasra No. 22/2 of Square No. 8 in Chak No. 26-J. B. Tehsil and District Faisalabad was admittedly allotted to Mst. Bano on 21-7-1954. The respondents Nos. 1 to 7 happened to be the successor-in- interest of Mst. Bano. This Khasra number was again allotted to the petitioner on 20-12-1967. The respondents Nos. 1 to 7 on coming to know of the double allotment sought its cancellation but their appeal was rejected as also their revision petition. Hence a constitutional petition was filed which was allowed in terms indicated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts of the case were somewhat different. Mst. Bano, the claimant had died and was succeeded by Mst. Jannat her daughter, Baboo her brother and Boota her nephew. It is contended that not only Baboo and Boota but also Mst.
Jannat had taken away all their verified claims to other districts and got allotment in full satisfaction of it. The land so released was allotted to the petitioner. It was according to the learned counsel not a case of double allotment. The allotment in favour of the petitioner suffered from no infirmity. The respondents could not protect their own earlier allotment in view of fact that Mat.
Jannat the immediate predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7 had taken away even her share out of the district.
4. The entire case of the petitioner is based on certain controverted question of fact as alleged by him. The order of the Settlement Commissioner gives a clear indication that the entitlement of Mst.
Bano worked out to 3089 P. I. Units. Of this 1779 P. I. Units fell to the share of Mst. Jannat, 194 P. I. Units to the share of Boota and 1156 P. i. Units to the share of Baboo Khan. Out of the total entitlement of 1937 P.
1. Units of Mst. Jannat, 1051 P. I. Units were settled in the name of Mst. Jannat in Chak No. 26- JB. Mst. Jannat took away only the balance to Rahimyar Khan District and got it settled there.
Khasra No. 22/2 is the one which was earlier settled in favour of Mil. Jannat in satisfaction of the claim left intact in this estate. The contention of the learned counsel that the entire claim of 1739 P. I.
Units was taken away by the petitioner, from district is contradicted by this finding of the Settlement Commissioner. As the disputed land had been allotted earlier to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and was in satisfac--tion of her verified claim settled in the estate it was not available land for being allotted to the petitioner. The decision under appeal suffers from no legal infirmity. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.