PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MEHBOOB BEGUM

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 15‑9‑1981 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissing application of Mst. Shakara Khatoon Hashmi for the cancellation of land allotted to Mst. Mehboob Begum.

2. Briefly stated Mst. Shakara Khatoon acting as informer filed an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 against the allotment made in favour of Mst. Mehboob Begum and similar applications were filed by Elahi Bakhsh on 6‑10‑1996, Mst. Abbasi Begum on 11‑3‑1974 and Muhammad Ali Zakar Hussain on 26‑6‑1974. All these applications were dismissed by consolidated order on 15‑9‑1981 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is observed in the impugned order that the allotment of the original claimant has not been satisfied in full and Mukhbars have failed to prove their case.

3. Admittedly, one of the informers Mst. Shakara Khatoon filed Writ Petition No.606‑R of 1981 assailing the impugned order, also subject‑matter of the present writ petition, and this was rejected by this Court on 14‑11‑1981. The other informers have not challenged the order dated 15‑9‑1981 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner impugned in this writ petition. No material has been placed on the record of this file that the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition filed by Mst. Shakara Khatoon was set aside or in any way altered failing which it is presumed that the‑order of this Court has become final.

4. This writ petition has been filed by Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Lahore to question the impugned order on the ground that the allotment could not have been made in favour of the allottee as it was as against 'Jageer'. It is, however, admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allottee has almost sold the entire allotment to different persons of whom are represented by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate and Mr. Sohrab Aslam, Advocate.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and am of the view that this writ petition must fail firstly that the same has been filed through the Chief Settlement Commissioner who himself has passed the impugned order and it was never agitated before him that the allotment could not have been made as against the 'Jageer' and it was only informers who were agitating the matter before the Settlement Authority for their own benefit. All Settlement laws have been repealed and it would be highly unjust to reopen matters which had already become final. There is a finding of fact in the impugned order that the claim of the original allottee was to the extent of 27112 units and these have not been fully settled.

6. The Province of Punjab has come forward after several years and it would be against all canons of justice to reopen the matter at this late stage. It is very strange situation that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is challenging his own order which was passed in this case rejecting the applications of the Mukhbars and holding that the allottee was rightly allotted the land as against her claim. It would not be out of place to observe that the impugned order was already challenged in Writ Petition No.606‑R of 1981 and this has been maintained in this writ petition. In case the petitioners were not a party (hey would have challenged this order in accordance with law and failing that they cannot enter into another round of litigation.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order and resultantly the writ petition is rejected with costs.

A.A./P‑133/L Petition dismissed.