HAQ NAWAZ Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G), JHANG , Qamar-ud-Din Khan
Facts necessary for decision of this case as gathered from arguments of learned counsel for the parties are stated below:‑
After Independence Umaid son of Surajmal allegedly migrated from Alwar State in India to village Ahmadpur Sial in Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang. He was allotted land vide PD‑II No.282 against his claim No.55188 in the year 1963. It appears that through four different mutations he alienated the property allotted to him to various persons. Some time thereafter Chahat son of Umrao Singh furnished information through an application under section 10/11 Act No.LV of 1973 that Umaid son of Surajmal never migrated from India to Pakistan after independence that the land measuring 188 Kanals allotted in his name vide RI‑II Khata No.282 against claim No.55188 was secured by impersonation and fraud and that the said allotment was bogus. He prayed for cancellation of the allotment from the name of 'maid son of Surajmal. An enquire was held by the Settlement Authorities in the said application. The matter finally came up before Ch. Muhammad Islam A . D . C . (G) with powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jhang who vide the impugned order dated 30‑10‑1975 accepted the application of informant Chahat. It was held by him that Umaid son of Surajmal never migrated from India to Pakistan, that the allotment of land in village Ahmadpur Sial District Jhang was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. As a result of this finding the land in question measuring 188 kanals allotted to Umaid son of Surajmal against claim No. 55188 through RL‑11 Khata No.282 was cancelled. One of the transferees, Ijaz Ahmad Khan challenged the order dated 30‑10‑1975 through writ petition No.1422‑H of 1975 which was dismissed by Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 23‑2‑1985. The order dated 30‑10‑1975 was upheld Ijaz Ahmad Khan challenged the High Court order dated 23‑2‑1985 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P.S.L.A.No‑341 of 1985. The said petition was dismissed. The learned Judges of Supreme Court refused prayer for leave to appeal vide the judgment dated 7‑12‑1986.
2. Out of the four sale mutations on behalf of Umaid son of Surajmal one bearing No.2688 was sanctioned on 22‑2‑1967 in favour of Bahawal, Muhammad, Ahmad and Haqnawaz sons of Pehalwan regarding sale of 23 Kanals 11 Marlas of land in their favour. Out of these four transferees only Hqnawaa filed the present constitutional petition on 12‑3‑1987 to challenge the order of additional Settlement Commissioner Jhang dated 30‑10‑1975. . He pleaded that he was purchaser for valid consideration of the disputed land from Umaid son of Surajmal; that the impugned order dated 30‑12‑1975 was passed without any notice to him and without affecting him any opportunity of hearing that he only 18 days before institution of writ petition "happened to be in Jhang and quite accidentally learnt to his dismay that the petitioners title to the land in question had been questioned by some informant who was then seeking to get the said land allotted to himself", and that the impugned order having been passed without lawful authority be set aside. The petition was contested by respondent No.3 Chahat informant. It was contended on his behalf that the allotment in favour of Umaid son of Surajmal was secured by mis representation and fraudulently; that the matter has already been settled upto Supreme Court in first round of litigation; that the petitioner fully well knew about the earlier proceedings and has initiated the second round of present litigation with mala fides and that this petition suffers from laches and be therefore, dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have also perused all the documents which form part of this petition.
4. Annexure 'A' is uncertified copy of RL‑11 Khata No.282. It indicates that the case for allotment of land to Umaid son of Surajmal came up for hearing on 17‑8‑1963. The Settlement Officer recorded the presence of Umar Din, Mukhtar‑e‑Aam of Umaid claimant who accepted the proposed allotment. The matter was adjourned for 15 days as per rules to invite objections to the proposal. There is no order on this document to show whether there was any objection to the proposal or not. There is also no order to show whether the land was in fact allotted or confirmed in the name of Umaid son of Surajmal claimant. There is, therefore, no evidence on file of this petition that the land was ever confirmed /allotted to Umaid son of Surajmal. The copy of Register Haqdaran Annexure 'B' pertains to the years 1964‑65 i.e. after the order dated 17‑8‑1964 in Annexure 'A' mentioned above. This copy of Register Haqdaran indicates the name of Umaid son of Surajmal in column No.3 as owner and Muhammad and Ahmad sons of Pehalwan as occupancy tenants in column No.4. The copy of mutation No.2688 is Annexure 'C'. The copy of Register Haqdaran Annexure 'D' for the years 1968‑69 indicates Bahawal, Muhammad, Ahmad and Haqnawaz sons of Pehalwan as owners in equal share of land measuring 23 Kanals 11 Marlas. Annexure 'E' is copy of the impugned order. The petitioner has not appended any other document in support of this petition. In rebuttal Chahat respondent No.3 has placed or, record copy of the judgment of Supreme Court dated 7‑12‑1986 in C . P . S . L . A . No.341 of 1985. It is apparent firstly, that there is no evidence on file of this case that Umaid son of Surajmal filed any claim in lieu of the land abandoned by him in India. Secondly, there is no evidence that Umaid son of Surajmall physically migrated to Pakistan from India after independence. Thirdly, there is no evidence that he appointed Umar Din as his generate attorney. The power of attorney has not been placed on file of this petition. The affidavit or any statement of Umar Din has also not been placed on file of this case. Fourthly, there is no evidence that Haqnawaz petitioner or his brother paid any consideration for transfer of the land in question vide mutation No.2688 dated 22‑2‑1967 Annexure 'C'. No sale deed or receipt to prove payment of the sale price has been placed on file of this case. Even order of allotment /confirmation of the land in dispute in favour of Umaid son of Surajmal has not been placed on record of this case. Mutation No. 2688 Annexure 'C' does not confer any title on petitioner or his brothers. Fifthly, there is also no evidence, excepting the .short affidavit of Haqnawaz petitioner, that he or his brothers were not aware of the proceedings pending before the Settlement Authorities in the Mukhbari application by Chahat respondent No.3 or the proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court. The question of legality of order dated 30‑10‑1975, having already been settled by High Court and Supreme Court cannot be reopened. Sixthly, even according to Haqnawaz petitioner, the land in question was purchased by him and his three brothers. The said three brothers did not challenge the impugned order by any means at any stage. Seventhly, the impugned order was passed on 30‑10‑1975. The present Constitutional petition was filed on 12‑3‑1987. The explanation of the petitioner that he came to know of this order only 10 days before filing of this petition is not convincing. This petition has been filed after 12 years of the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner has not explained this delay of 12 years. The present petition has been filed with delay and suffers from laches.
In view of the above discussion I find no merit in this Constitutional petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.
A. A./H‑74/L Petition dismissed.