NASEER-UD-DIN QURESHI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
Through this writ petition Nasiruddin Qureshi son of M. Ghulam Rasool has challenged the order dated 7‑6‑1993 of Mr. Iltaf Yousaf Muhammad, E.A.C. Residual Properties and Allied Matters whereby the latter had allotted the disputed property to Amanullah respondent No.5.
2. Short but relevant background of the case is that the disputed property was allotted to one Sona refugee from whom it was purchased by Ghulam Hussain who, vide Mutation No.4222 of 2‑7‑1985 further sold it to Nasiruddin Qureshi. Meanwhile, Amanullah respondent No.5 and another Muhammad Shafi through separate writ petitions challenged the aforesaid allotment and the subsequent transaction etc.
3. This Court, while deciding both the writ petitions through judgment dated 2‑6‑1990 in Writ Petition No.240 of 1985 accepted the writ petitions, cancelled allotment in favour of Ghulam Hussain Sona, left the question of allotment open and directed Rehabilitation Authorities to decide it afresh in accordance with law. The F.A.C., Residual Properties and Allied Matters, Peshawar through his judgment dated 8‑6‑1993 allotted the property to Amanullah and hence this writ petition by Nasiruddin Qureshi.
4. It is a proved fact that till the allotment of Sona, the petitioner Nasiruddin Qureshi was never a claimant before the authorities. Rather he in fact is a normal vendee from Ghulam Hussain regardless of his being a refugee. In the circumstances mentioned above when the original allotment was cancelled and when be lost his right having obtained through purchase, he has stepped in A as a claimant which he never was before.
5. He in fact claims that the property in dispute be given to him against cash payment at specific rate. Such purchase under the law is permissible only when the prospective purchaser has either remained in possession of the property or has been a temporary allottee thereof. The petitioner does not fulfil either of the two conditions and hence was not entitled to the purchase as well.
6. Allotment in favour of Nasiruddin Qureshi had in fact been done in village Pir Piai, Tehsil Nowshera to the extent of 113 Kanals, 8 Marlas of agricultural land in the year 1952. His claim remained verified only for 273 Produce Index Units and so in the year 1963 his aforesaid allotment to the extent of 29 Kanals, 5 Marlas was confirmed and the rest was cancelled. Instead of challenging such cancellation, he has applied for purchase of the excess area. The Board of Revenue through a letter dated 8‑4‑1984 directed the allotment of alternate units in Nowshera Khurd. The petitioner failed to get that as well but tie remedy, therefore, stands alluded to in the judgment dated 23‑5‑1990 of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No.80‑P of 1989, Nasiruddin Qureshi v. Member, Board of Revenue.
7. So far as Amanullah respondent is concerned, he has been given the property against his valid claims which are still reportedly unsatisfied. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has no locus standi, to turn around and pose a claim against the property which he once had purchased as a simple vendee from an allottee whose allotment was cancelled. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./2008/P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.