SADIQ ALI Versus IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-'This order will dispose of two petitions being Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 486/77 and 487/77.

2. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages and the forums through which the litigation of the property in dispute passed, and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the order that we propose to pass in these cases to state, that on the success of a mukhbari application filed by the private respondents herein, some area of land (involved in C. P. 486!77) which had been transferred to the petitioner along with property bearing No. P-157, Ward No. 10, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), was proposed to the mukhbars as a reward of their mulchbari by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) considering the same as agricultural land on 6-4-1967.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 23-9-1967 and the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside.

4. The mukhbars (respondents) then filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 6-R/68. During the pendency of that petition the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner made certain other order in favour of the present petitioner giving him some more area treating the same as part and parcel of the bungalow aforesaid on 7-4-1976. The private respondents in C. P. 487/77 who had been proposed the said area as agricultural land and who were aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner then filed constitutional petition being W. P. 90S-R/76. Both these petitions were heard together and accepted by the High Court by its order dated 17-5-1977, whereby the case was remanded to the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner to attend to the points which according to the High Court needed a fresh and proper adjudication, viz. as to whether the land involved was an agricultural land (if we can state) in order to verify as to how it was to be transferred, viz. whether under the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act XLVII of 1958, or under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVII of 1958), and whether the same was to be transferred as part of the above-mentioned bungalow and to what extent and as to what was its relevant value.

5. Against the aforesaid orders of remand of the High Court dated 17-5-1977 the petitioner has come up in respective petitions for leave to appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued his case in quite some detail in order to show, that the area involved herein was part and parcel of the bungalow and was rightly transferred to his client along with the bungalow as "three times the plinth area", etc. and that there was no excess with him. For this purpose. he referred to certain transfer orders passed at various stages and some other material contained in the paper book. From the side of the caveators similarly reference was made to the Revenue Record to show that the particular area involved herein was an agricultural land inasmuch as it was being irrigated at the relevant time by canal water and had remained with tenants who used to cultivate the same on usual batai system, and agricultural crops used to be gown thereon. He also referred to Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizri v. Riaz Din and others (P L D 1974 S C.276E), to show that where an area transferred as a part of a building or an industrial concern (which was the position in that case) without applying mind and without taking note of the revenue record (special jamabandi for 1946-47), the said transfer was illegal and that the same should be transferred after first determining its nature in the light of all relevant record including the revenue record. As this exercise was not conscientiously done in this case and as the ` revenue record was not kept under consideration and the matter needed proper adjudication; therefore, we think that the remand ordered by the High Court in the circumstances was quite just and fair because during the course of the inquiry aforesaid both sides will have ample opportunity to present their points of view and to lead evidence on the subject. Any expression of opinion on our part, it is obvious, is likely to prejudice one side or the other, especially when the complaint of the petitioner is that he was not associated by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in the relevant proceedings before him.

7. When confronted with this situation learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Muhammad Ismail v,. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1974 S C M R 85), argued that an informer has no right to file any revision and according to him should. consequently have -no right to file any Writ Petition in the High Court. He submitted that for this reason the High Court should have rather dismissed the writ petitions of the respondents instead of remanding the case at their instance. The contention has no merit. The right of the informants was statutorily recognized by insertion of section 14(1-A) in the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act XLVII of 1958, by the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement (Amendment) Act LV of 1973, (gazetted 30-7-1973) and was continued by Ordinance VI of 1974, (gazetted 22-3-1974); and Act XXXVI of 1974 (gazetted 15-1-1974). Later the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII was repealed by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 (gazetted 28-1-1975) but pending cases (of informers) were saved to continue as before. This is a later legislative development and as such the precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of the present case is not relevant. See Shah Nawaz and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (P L D 1979 S C 846), where rights of informants qua agricultural land were recognized and enforced.

8. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The two petitions are therefore dismissed hereby. s. A. H. Petition dismissed.