MUHAMMAD RAFI Versus MUHAMMAD MALIK
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir settled in Sialkot District. The appellants filed a Mukhbari application alleging that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Chiragh Din, had obtained double allotments in two different villages. While the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in one village based on this allegation, the Settlement Commissioner later found as a matter of fact that there were two distinct individuals named Chiragh Din, thereby negating the double allotment claim. Despite this finding, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on technical grounds regarding a cancelled Ration Card. The Lahore High Court subsequently set aside these orders, ruling that the allotment fell under the specific category of the Scheme for allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's decision was correct and that the legal precedent cited by the appellants regarding the cancellation of allotments on Mukhbari applications was factually inapplicable to the present case, as no double allotment existed.
- Can an allotment of land to a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir be cancelled on the basis of a Mukhbari application if the allegation of double allotment is factually disproven?
- Does the existence of two different individuals with the same name and parentage preclude a finding of double allotment by settlement authorities?
- Is a High Court justified in restoring an allotment if the settlement authorities' cancellation order was based on a flawed factual premise regarding the identity of the allottee?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J .‑‑In this appeal leave had been granted on some misunderstanding or misguidance by the learned counsel. The facts are that the appellants and predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents 'namely Chiragh Din being refugees from Jammu and Kashmir were settled in Sialkot District. This Chiragh Din was alleged to have obtained allotment in village Sohowali and village Hathwathian. Thereupon, the appellants are said to have filed a Mukhbari application to the effect that Chiragh Din had obtained double allotment. As a result the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 18th November, 1972 cancelled the allotment in favour of Chiragh Din in village Sohowali and allotted the land to the appellants. Thereupon, the legal heirs of Chiragh Din filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Cz)mmissioner in his order dated 18th December, 1973 gave a finding of fact that there were two persons by the name of Chiragh Din with parentage of Kakku. One was Arain by caste and the other was Awan. In one case there were four members of the family and in the other nine, and that they had been issued different Ration Cards. In the light of this evidence he arrived at the conclusion that there was no double allotment in favour of the said Chiragh Din and consequently the cancellation of land allotted to him in village Sohowali was unjustified. However, he dismissed revision petition of the legal heirs of the said Chiragh Din on a different ground that since his Ration Card had been cancelled, the allotment made in his favour of land not being valid, could not be restored in favour of his legal heirs. On this the respondents challenged the orders dated 18th November, 1972 and 18th December, 1973 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner as well as the Settlement Commissioner by way of a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Their writ petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the case of the said Chiragh Din clearly fell in category " Jeem " of item No.5 of the Scheme for allotment of land to the refugees of Jammu and Kashmir (attached as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) and that the cancellation therefore was illegal and unjustified and it was accordingly restored in favour of the respondents. The order passed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge was in accordance with the law applicable to the case and did not call for any interference but it appears the learned counsel while arguing the case of his clients i.e. the appellants before the Supreme Court submitted that the learned Judge erred in interfering with the exercise of the discretion by the settlement authorities in a Mukhbari application when the allotment of land in favour of said Chiragh Din had been cancelled on the ground of double allotment and in support of this submission reliance was placed by learned counsel on 1976 S C M R 499 Muhammad Shafi v. Settlement Commissioner in which it was held that even temporary allotments in favour of refugees from Jammu and Kashmir could be cancelled on Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, whereas this was not the position in this case at all nor was the authority cited applicable to the facts of the present case.
2. In the light of the above discussion we rescind the order granting leave to the appellants and dismiss the petition.
3. M . I . / M‑507/ S Petition dismissed.