AHMAD ALI Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land measuring 23 kanals and 7 marlas in District Multan, initially claimed to have been allotted to the appellants' father in 1952. The core legal question is whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in cancelling the alleged prior allotment and reallotting the land to the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the factual premise upon which leave was granted was incorrect, as revenue records (RL II and Khasra Girdawaris) demonstrated that no land was ever allotted to the appellants' father and neither he nor the appellants were ever in possession of the disputed property. The key principle laid down is that claims of unlawful cancellation of land allotment fail when the foundational assertion of a prior valid allotment and continuous possession is disproven by official revenue records.
- Does an order cancelling a land allotment stand if the foundational claim of a prior valid allotment is disproven by revenue records?
- Can an appellant maintain a challenge against the reallotment of state land without proving prior valid allotment and possession?
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J .‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in this case on the submission made by the learned counsel that the land, in dispute, measuring 23 kanals and 7 marla situated in Chak No. 287/EB, Tehsil Vehari, District Multan, was allotted to Jhanda, father of the appellants, in 1952, and possession delivered to him, but on 17‑12‑1963, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment and allotted the land to Lal Muhammad, respondent No. 1, on the ground that Jhanda had obtained land in excess of the ceiling fixed for the estate at 500 produce index units. It was contended that the order of allotment in favour of Jhanda having attained finality, the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in cancelling the allotment and giving the land to respondent No. 1.
2. The order was challenged in the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan by a writ petition, but a learned Judge dismissed it inter alia on the ground that it was not proved that the land was at any time allotted to Jhanda. It was urged that, the High Court had acted in error as the land was allotted to Jhanda and on his demise the appellants had been in possession since 1952.
3. We have now examined the record and find that the very premises on which leave to appeal was granted is incorrect. In view of the entries in RL II the learned counsel for the appellants shifted his position and stated that a proposal for allotment of the land in dispute to Jhanda was made in 1953. It is mentioned in the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 4‑9‑1963 that Khasra Girdawaris Exhs. I, II and III, filed by Lai Muhammad, respondent, showed that prior to 1962, neither Jhanda nor his sons had been in possession of the disputed land. When the attention of the counsel for the appellant was drawn to the fact of the order he gave up the position that Jhanda or his heirs have been in possession.
4. It follows that the land in dispute was at no stage allotted to Jhand and that neither he nor his son, the appellants herein, have ever been i possession. The contention that the allotment in favour of Jhanda had obtained finality and could not be cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner accordingly fails and so does the appeal which rested entirely on this assertion.
5. Dismissed. No costs.
6. Appeal dismissed.