MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus The STATE
ORDER
WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This case is taken up in pursuance of the order dated 22-9-2014 passed by learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The operative part of the same reads as under:--
From the perusal of above men-tioned judgment dated 16-1-2013, it reveals that the Hon'ble High Court directed the Notified Officer to decide the matter. The counsel for the petitioners requested that the case may be transferred to the Notified Officer concerned. This court has no objection. The case, therefore, transferred to the Member (Judicial-III) Notified Officer, Lahore Division to decide the matter in the light of the judgment dated 16-1-2013.
2. On receipt of case file, the same was fixed in paishi. On appearance of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Settlement and Rehabilitation was called, who raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the instant case contending that the case of the petitioners is not covered under section 2(2) of Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, (XVII) of 1975. Because, the instant case was never pending before any competent forum at the time of promulgation of Act, ibid. The petitioners raised their voice for the first time in year 1995, which is quite evident from the perusal of para No.4 of the writ petition No.125-R1995. In said writ petition, the petitioners themselves admitted that their earlier Writ Petition No.350-R/1983 was decided by Hon'ble High Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between private parties.
3. In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they were allotted 63-kanals of land in year 1961 and their remaining claim is pending since then, learned counsel was required to give some documentary evidence in support of such contention, who sought time to provide the relevant documents. On the next date of hearing i.e. 1-12-2014, learned counsel for the petitioners did not provide any document in support of his contention and on the request of the learned counsel of the petitioners, the case was adjourned for today i.e.15-12-2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and instead of producing any documentary evidence in support of his contention stated that Hon'ble High Court in contempt petition has directed vide order dated 10-12-2014 this Hon'ble Court to decide the case of the petitioners, today. Upon query, he responded that he could not get the copy of such orders up till now. Learned counsel further submitted that he has already filed written arguments and do not want to provide any further document in support of his contention.
4. From the above examination, it is found that the contention of the petitioners that their case for the allotment of some remaining land is pending before promulgation of Act ibid, has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. Para No.4 of Writ Petition No.125-R/1995 filed by the petitioners is quite relevant in this regard, which reads as under:--
"That the above mentioned writ petition was disposed of on the basis of compromise that the respondents would surrender possession to the extent of
40-kanals in one compact from one side according to the choice of the petitioners. No order for the accommodation of the petitioners for allotment of the land to the extent of their remaining units mentioned above was passed"
5. It is vividly clear that petitioners failed to satisfy the court on the maintainability of their petition in the light of section 2(2) of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Hence, it is established that the case is not covered within the purview of pending proceedings. Therefore, the same is dismissed being not maintainable.
6. The case file shall be consigned to the record room after its due compilation/page marking.
HBT/12/Rev Petition dismissed.