Khan ZIAULLAH KHAN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands). The Settlement Commissioner had cancelled an allotment of land previously made to the petitioners, favoring respondent No. 2, whose claim had been pending since 1961, whereas the petitioners' claim only originated in 1970. The petitioners challenged this cancellation, arguing that even if the cancellation was valid, the authorities should have only allotted a portion of the land to respondent No. 2, allowing the petitioners to retain the remaining balance. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings, which noted that the Settlement Commissioner could not allot an area exceeding the claim of respondent No. 2. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's position, holding that if the area allotted to the respondent is less than the total land previously held by the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to retain the surplus. The Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the relevant authorities to adjust the allotment based on the actual extent of the respondent's claim.
- Can a Settlement Commissioner allot land in excess of a claimant's entitlement?
- Are petitioners entitled to retain surplus land if the successful claimant's entitlement is less than the total land allotted?
- Does the cancellation of an allotment for a superior claim require the forfeiture of the entire land if the claim is smaller than the total area?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The Settlement Commissioner (Lands cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on a revision file by the respondent No. 2 that his claim had been awaiting satisfaction in village in 1961 and could not have been ignored in order to accommodate the petitioner who brought his claim-to the said village in the-year 1970 The order of the Settlement Commissioner was found to be unexceptionable by the High Court and the petitioners' writ petition was dismissed. The have now filed this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the order of the Settlement Commissioner is found to be valid the claim of respondent No. 2 could be satisfied by allotting him apart of the area allotted to the petitioners and the remaining land should have been allowed to be retained by the petitioners. This plea was also raised in the High Court and it was observed that:- "No facts and figures have been brought to my notice. However; it is understood that the respondent No. 1 cannot order allotment of a larger area than the one which may be equivalent to the claim of respondent No. 2. In that case, the balance, if any, shall remain with the petitioners, The petitioners may, therefore, bring that situation, authority-" at all the same, is correct, to the notice of the concerned authority.