MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C, J. :‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed to challenge the validity of the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner dated the 28 th of February 1967 and the 24 th of November, 1967, respec tively.

2. The petitioners and the respondents 3 to 7 are refugees from Jammu & Kashmir. The said respondents are claimants but be petitioners have no claim whatsoever. They merely seek allotment in lieu of free rations.

3. The land in dispute was allotted to the contesting respondents at Khata No. 5 of R. I,. II of village Data but subsequently the petitioners also obtained an allotment of the same lands at Khata No. 20 and obtained a Parchi Taqseem Arazi in 1958, although the Fard‑i‑Taqseem with regard to the same lands was issued to the contesting respondents as early as 1951, and they were put in possession.

4. It was, in these circumstances that the petitioner No. 2, on the 9th of January, 1967. made an application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising power of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, praying that the khasra numbers in dispute be excluded from his allotment and alternative areas be allotted to him. On this application, an enquiry was made. In this enquiry it transpired that this was a case of double allotment an earlier allotment having been made with respect to the same khasra numbers to the contesting respondents. In view of this report which was confirmed by the Tehaildar and the S.D. Q.,

5. Narowal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, on the 28th of February, 1967, ordered the cancellation of the khasra numbers in dispute from the allotment of the petitioners.

6. The petitioners challenged this order before the Settlement Commissioner who, on the 24 th of the November 1967, dismissed their appeal as being barred by time. From this order they carne to the High Court in writ jurisdiction without filing a copy of the order of the additional Settlement Commissioner. The record was accordingly summoned, and after examining the record, the high Court agreed with the findings of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and dismissed the petition.

7. In this matter, on an earlier occasion, we had asked the learned, counsel, appearing in support of the petition and the Legal Adviser to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to give us detailed information with regard to the permanent settlement of Jammu & Kashmir refuges because it had then been contended before us that even temporary allotment in the favour of Jammu & Kashmir refugees could not be cancelled.

8. This contention is wholly without substance as it now appears that, according to the Scheme framed for the settlement of Jammu & Kashmir refugees, a claimant prior allottee has preference and, therefore, the contesting respondents have, been rightly held to have a preferential claim.

9. This petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed.

10. Petition dismissed.