RISALDAR QURBAN ALI vs ALLAH RAKHA AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the restoration of land allotments to the respondents. The dispute concerns land originally allotted to the respondents in 1957 as Jammu and Kashmir refugees, which was subsequently cancelled in 1972 without a hearing. Following a successful constitutional challenge by the respondents, the matter was remanded to settlement authorities, who ultimately allowed the respondents to retain the land in 1976. The petitioner, a subsequent allottee, challenged this restoration, arguing that the initial 1959 allotment was illegal and that the respondents failed to cultivate the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that it was too late to challenge the validity of the 1959 allotments. The Court found that the respondents' status as Jammu and Kashmir refugees was established, entitling them to the land. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the settlement authorities' decision to restore the allotment.
- Can the validity of a land allotment made in 1959 be challenged decades later in constitutional proceedings?
- Does the status of being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee entitle an allottee to retain land allotments despite allegations of non-cultivation?
- Is the High Court empowered to disturb a factual determination made by settlement authorities regarding the restoration of land allotments?
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-2-1979 whereby his consti--tutional petition challenging the restoration of the land allotted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed.
2. The land in dispute was allotted in 1957 to the aforesaid respondents by way of maintenance as Jammu and Kashmir refugees. In 1972 it was cancelled from their names for various reasons without hearing them. The respondents filed a constitutional petition which succeeded and the matter was remitted to the settlement authorities. The Settlement commissioner by his order, dated 26th January, 1976 allowed them to retain the land. The petitioner who got the allotment after the land was resumed from the respondents invoked the constitutional jurisdiction for getting the cancella--petition order against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 restored. He failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the initial allotment made to the respondents in 1959 was itself illegal and it could not be allowed to remain in tact. Besides the ground taken up for cancellation of the land was not only that respondents were not Jammu and Kashmir refugees but that they were not cultivating and utilizing it for their main--tenance. Even if they were found to be Jammu & Kashmir refugees it was not sufficient to bring back the restoration of the allotment.
4. As regards the first ground the High Court held and rightly so that it is too late in the day to contend that the allotments to the respondent made in June, 1959 were invalid. The fact that the respondents were held to be Jammu & Kashmir refugees being established, the settlement authorities on that account held them entitled to hold on to the entitlements. The High Court could not disturb the restoration of the allotment. There is no merit the petition and leave to appeal is refused.