BASHIR AHMAD Versus NOOR AHMAD

ORDER

1. I have seen the records of the case and have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent. It has come to notice during the arguments and the perusal of the records that there are lot of inconsistencies and mis‑statements of facts. In the very first place, the name of the respondent is not Noor Muhammad but Noor Ahmad. In the statement before me, he has accepted that his real name is Noor Ahmad and in all the records that have been produced today before me, namely copy of Haysiat Tax Assessment List, copy of affidavit and application for allotment of Ihata made on 31‑8‑1966 (all these documents produced by the petitioner) and the receipt of payment of professional Tax dated 15‑4‑1970 (produced by the respondent) the name of the respondent is shown as Noor Ahmad. For all future purposes, therefore, the respondent's name should be shown as Noor Ahmad not Noor Mohammad.

2. The caste of the respondent has been shown in this case as Dhobi, presumably on the basis of the application of the respondent dated 6‑5‑1969 for allotment of Ihata No. 60 in dispute where his caste is shown as Dhebi. But in the documents produced by the petitioner, quoted above, his caste has been shown as Mochi. It appears that the Patwari did not make any investigation about the correct caste of the applicant. It is however, obvious that the caste shown by the respondent in his application dated 31‑8‑1966 for allotment of ihata No. 14 and in his affidavit of the same date, as also in the Haysiat Tax Assessment List dated 10‑6‑1967, has to be treated as more dependable for purposes of determining his caste than in his subsequent application dated 6‑5‑1969 for the allotment of the Ihata in dispute. It is presumably with the object of securing the Ihata No. 60 in dispute, on the pretext of being a Dhobi for the village community that he changed his caste to that of a Dhobi.

2. The Colony Assistant/Collector in his order dated 26‑8‑1969 and the Commissioner in his order dated 9‑12‑1969 gave their decisions for allotment of the disputed Ihata No. 60 in favour of Noor Ahmad on the following grounds:‑

(i) That he was functioning as a Dhobi for the village community.

(ii) That he had 18 family members and 8 heads of cattle.

(iii) That he had no place to live in.

(iv) That according to the report of the Patwari dated 7‑7‑1969 there were 44 Ihatas still available for allotment; and

(v) That Ihata No 60 was meant for Mueens and could not be allotted to Zamindars.

3. ???????????????????????

4. The facts as they have emerged today before me, according to the statements of Noor Ahmad, respondent, and the Patwari go to prove that all the above premises for the decisions of the lower Courts were the result of mis‑statements and distortions by Noor Ahmad and the Patwari together. It has now been established before me according to the documents quoted above and the written statements:

(i) That Noor Ahmad respondent was a Mochi and a shopkeeper; he was running a shop by unauthorised occupation of site No. 10;

(ii) That he has only four family members‑he married only recently and has two small children apart from his wife, and mother. He has not made any statement about cattle heads.

(iii) That he is living in Ihata No. 14 since 1966 for which he made an application on 31‑8‑1956. He has stated before me that he is living with his brother Manzoor Ahmad.

(iv) That no Ihatas were available for allotment and those that were on record shown as un-allotted were already in occupation of the refugees and others.

(v) That as many as 10 Ihatas of Mueens, out of which four Ihatas, namely Nos. 63 to 66 are in this line adjacent to Ihata No. 60 which were originally meant for Mueens, have either been allotted to agriculturists (Zamindars) or are in their possession. There has, therefore, been no sanctity of Mueen Ihatas not being allotted to or not being in possession of non‑Mueens.

5. As has emerged, the whole basis on which the orders of the lower Courts were passed have changed. It is also obvious that both the respondent and the Patwari have been responsible for distorting facts and misleading the lower Courts in this case. As regards the behaviour of the Patwari in this case, I have recorded a separate order for his suspension and further action.

6. So far as the claims of Bashir Ahmad are concerned, it is on record that he has been using Ihata No. 60 for keeping his cattle. He is at present sharing Ihata No. 42 of two kanals with three other persons. His contention is that this portion which he is sharing, and which is of 7 or 10 marlas he has purchased through stamped document from another refugee Noor Mohammad and has not been given any Ihata by the Government.

7. From the facts, as have emerged in today's hearing, it is clear that Noor Ahmad has been trying to secure the allotment of ihata No. 60 through distortions with the help of the Patwari and has no preferential claim for the allotment of this Ihata. Many other refugees and agriculturists have taken possession or are being allotted Mueen Ihatas in the Mueen section and this argument for allotment in his favour has fallen through. It is also however, clear that both the parties are pressing for more accommodation and as their families are expanding they need more area ;o live in. It has been stated before me that Plata No. 59 which is adjacent to Ihata No. 60 has a big chhaper (pond) and would not be suitable for allotment for residential purposes, otherwise this Ihata No. 59 could have been given to Noor Ahmad. Although on record this Ihata is allotted to Chowkidar he does not live in it and lives in Ihata No. 51. In the alternative the only way to stop this litigation and quarrel among the two parties is to partition the Ihata No. 60 (19 marlas). 1, therefore, A order that Ihata No. 60 in dispute may be partitioned. This partitioning should be done in a straight line giving 2/3rd to petitioner Bashir Ahmad and approximately 1/3rd to Noor Ahmad respondent.

8. Orders may be issued accordingly and parties informed.

9. Order accordingly.