DIN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (I), SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of agricultural land to a displaced person. The petitioner, having been allotted land equivalent to 35 Produce Index Units, sought to purchase an additional area of 37 Produce Index Units that had previously been cancelled from his possession due to being in excess of his entitlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed an enforceable right to purchase this excess land, despite it having been subsequently allotted to a third-party respondent. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had declined to disturb the existing allotment to the respondent, reasoning that the land was already committed to a temporary allottee with a verified claim. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner’s decision to prioritize the existing allotment to the respondent was just, equitable, and fair. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities possess the discretion to decline the disturbance of settled land allotments when doing so would unfairly prejudice third parties with verified claims, even if a claimant asserts a right to purchase excess land.
- Can a displaced person claim a right to purchase agricultural land that has already been allotted to another party with a verified claim?
- Is a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner justified in refusing to disturb an existing land allotment to a third party to accommodate a claim for excess land?
- Does the High Court have the authority to uphold an administrative decision regarding land settlement that is deemed just and equitable?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner, who is a displaced person was allotted agricultural land measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas (equivalent to 35 P. I. Units) in accordance with his entitlement. He was earlier holding an area equivalent to 72 P.
1. Units, out of which 37 P.
1. Units were cancelled, being in excess of his entitlement. His plea before us is that be was entitled to purchase the excess area under the existing instructions.
This question was considered by the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who, in his order dated 23-12-1974, observed that since the land in excess had already been allotted to respondent No. 5, a temporary allottee, on his verified claim it was not advisable that the allotment already made in his favour should be disturbed at this stage. The High Court refused to interfere with the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and we consider quite rightly because the order passed by him was a just, equitable and fair order.
There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed hereby.