GHULAM ABBAS Versus LAL DIN

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of Syed Atta Hussain Shah who has since died and has been substituted by the present petitioners. It is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 28 January, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No.196‑R of 1977. The background is that some agricultural land situated in Sialkot district was owned by certain evacuees who mortgaged the same to the grandfather of the present petitioners on 7 April 1941 for Rs.300 by a registered mortgagee deed which inter alia authorised the mortgagee to effect improvements on the said land and claim compensation therefore at the time of redemption. During the settlement operation the said land was treated as evacuee and was allotted to respondents Nos.1 to 7. Thereafter the present petitioners who had stepped into the shoes of the original mortgagee filed an application before the AC/ASC(L) Shakargarh under section 14‑A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 praying that they should not be dispossessed without payment of mortgage money amounting to Rs.300 and also the value of improvements made in the said land. The AC/ASC(L) held them entitled only to receive mortgage money amounting to Rs.300 but disallowed their claim for compensation on the ground that they had not sought a declaration to that effect from the Custodian under section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition which was eventually dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the ground that even if the petitioners could claim compensation for the improvements, the application for the same submitted on 10 May 1971 was after an unexplained gross delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that this was not a proper ground for dismissal of the writ petition, and that if the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the improvements, the AC/ASC(L) should have granted the same even though they had not obtained a declaration in respect thereof from the Custodian. We have heard learned counsel but in our considered opinion it is not a fit case for interference for the reason that under the Press Note dated 6 December, 1962 issued by the Settlement Department applications had been invited by 31 January, 1963 from the mortgagees of evacuee land allotted to displaced persons for payment of mortgage charged money which also included compensation for the improvements, but admittedly the petitioners did not apply to the AC/ASC(L) for compensation by the due date. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed.

3. M.I./G‑83/S Petition dismissed.