Mst.FAIZ BIBI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) VEHARI

This order will dispose of (1) W.P. No.1133‑R of 1979, (2) W.P. No.456‑R of 1980, (S) W.P.No.665‑R of 1979, (4) W.P.No.153‑R of 1980, (5) W.P.No.457‑R of 1980 and (6) W.P.No.703‑R of 1979 as these arise in somewhat similar circumstances.

2. It is unfortunate that the poor people with small claims are entangled in a prolonged litigation spread over more than thirty‑five years out of the total life of the country of over forty‑one years. The dispute is who is to have small pieces of land in satisfaction of their verified claims. The respondents on creation of Pakistan migrated and settled in the estate Chak No.166/E.B. Tehsil and District Vehari. They were made temporary allotments in 1947 for survival. 1t was provided that on verification of their claims for land abandoned in the then East Punjab, India, the temporary allotments will be confirmed and land allotted according to their entitlements. The respondents filed their claims which were verified. Before the disputed pieces of land were to be confirmed in their favour, these were allotted and confirmed to the petitioners or their predecessors‑in-interest on 30‑12‑1951. The respondents filed appeals and an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) vide order dated 12‑11‑1954 accepted the appeals, set aside the orders of confirmation in favour of the petitioners and remanded the cases "for further inquiry as to whether the appellants' claim forms were received in Chak No.166/E.B. on 28‑2‑1951 or before the confirmation of land in favour of the respondents". Leaving aside unnecessary steps in the litigation, the matter was brought to the High Court in W.P.No.864‑R of 1963. MrJustice M.S.H.Quraishi he as then was vide order dated 4‑5‑1972 directed that the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner should dispose of the matters remanded to him in the result of the order dated 12‑11‑1954 of the appellate authority." In pursuance thereof, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned orders has found that the claims of the temporary allottees i.e. the respondents were received in the estate prior to the confirmation of land in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors‑in‑interest and consequently they being temporary allottees of the disputed pieces of land in possession were entitled to the confirmation thereof and to that extent the allotments m favour of the petitioners or their predecessors be set aside. Thus, the respondents were allowed to retain their temporary allotments and the same were confirmed in their favour in satisfaction of their claims. This is vide orders dated 25‑4‑1979. These are challenged through the abovementioned Constitutional Petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners in the first three petitions were not parties in the remand proceeding and in the last three petitions they were not heard. He also made some submissions on facts not crucial indeed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a large number of appeals were remanded vide the order dated 12‑11‑1954 and this order was upheld by the High Court in W.P.No.864‑R of 1963, in pursuance of which the impugned orders have been passed. The petitioners, or their predecessors‑in -interest were aware of the litigation and were participating. Omission of their names in the array of respondents in the appellate order of remand is not material. They have no right to the temporary allotments of the respondents when the latter have verified claims. Further, that in similar circumstances, Writ Petition No.508‑R of 1979 was filed in which after noting that though it would be hard on the then petitioners to lose the allotment after many years yet that could not be helped because the land had been given to the temporary allottees thereof who had verified claims in their hands. This is vide order dated 20‑5‑1977. The order was upheld on appeal in an Infra‑Court Appeal No.313 of 1979 vide order of a learned Division Bench dated 6‑4‑1980. It was submitted that the cases of the petitioners are identical. Learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the assertion.

5. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department has submitted that even if it be that the petitioners were not a party to the proceedings in which the impugned order had been passed or were not heard, at the maximum an order of remand would be called for and this will serve no useful purpose except to prolong the agony of litigation because the petitioners cannot hope to compete successfully as against the private respondents who were the temporary allottees of the land in dispute and had been confirmed the land in lieu of their verified claims. By no stretch of imagination, the private respondents who were the temporary allottees having claims in their hands can be asked to go in the wilderness. It was also submitted that the decision by this Court in Writ Petition No‑%&R of 1979 upheld on appeal dealing with the competing rights of the Petitioners as against the temporary allottees it fully applicable to these cases and aiding.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also Perused the record. They were given time to come to some understanding themselves. Unfortunately, that has not come about. The crux of tire problem is that the petitioners want the pieces of land allotted to them out of the temporary allotments of the respondents, whereas, the respondents have been confirmed their temporary allotments in satisfaction of their claims which had been verified ! and received in the estate before the allotment was made to the petitioners or their predecessors. In the impugned orders, it has been found as fact that claim of the respondents after verifications have been received in the estate prior to the allotment in favour of the petitioners. The finding of fact is obviously not. interferable in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. In view of the fact, the temporary allotments of the respondents had to be confirmed in their favour in satisfaction of their claims. This was the law. This has been done under the impugned orders. For not having been impleaded individually or not property heard can only lead to an order of remand. The proceedings have continued for 6 too long already. More than 35 years have gone by. The allotments in favour or 1 the petitioners of the pieces of land out of the temporary allotment of the respondents when the latters' claim were pending in the estate was obviously illegal and void. They cannot have the land in preference to the respondents. ' Therefore, no useful purpose can be served by an order of remand except prolonging the agony of litigation. It is true that it is hard for the petitioners to lose the land after so many years of allotment. But it cannot be helped in view of the preferential right of the respondents and they are to be blamed in no way. Therefore, with a heavy heart though, their petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is directed that since the petitioners have been involved in the whirl pool of litigation by the orders of allotments passed by the Rehabilitation Authorities and the proceedings have been `pending' C throughout in terms of Section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, the petitioners' claim to the extent of the disputed allotments, shall be satisfied out of any 'available' land as soon as possible. The petitions are thus disposed of.

M.Y.H./F‑78/L Petitions dismissed.