ALI IBNE MUHAMMAD Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION WING
This appeal concerns the allotment of agricultural land to displaced persons whose claims were verified in 1958 but remained unfulfilled due to administrative delays. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to land allotment after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975, despite the absence of pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, holding that the mere verification of a claim and issuance of an entitlement certificate did not constitute 'pending proceedings' for allotment. Consequently, there was no legal basis to compel the authorities to allot land after the statute's repeal. The key principle laid down is that rights to land allotment under the settlement scheme are contingent upon the existence of formal, pending allotment proceedings at the time of repeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Court acknowledged the appellants' harsh treatment by the Settlement Department and expressed an expectation that authorities would still attempt to adjust the claim if land were available.
- Does the issuance of an entitlement certificate constitute 'pending proceedings' for the allotment of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975?
- Can a claim for land allotment be enforced after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975 if no allotment proceedings were pending?
- Does the failure of administrative authorities to act on a verified claim create a vested right to land allotment after the repeal of the governing statute?
- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1975
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J .‑‑This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑7‑1985 in Intro‑Court Appeal No.133 of 1983, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge of the said learned Court passed in Writ Petition No.887‑R of 1979.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellants are displaced persons from a Non‑Agreed area (namely United Province in India). They filed their claim, inter alia, for 29 bighas 10 biswas of urban agricultural land under Schedule IV abandoned by them in India while migrating to Pakistan. The Claims Officer verified the claim of the appellants on 13‑8‑1958. The appellants applied to the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Lahore, for preparation of entitlement certificate but as their declaration in UR‑I Form (which was filed on 30‑4‑1959) was returned with the objection that the original certified copy of the verification order should be attached with the form. The said form was again submitted on 25‑8‑1960 after due compliance, but the authorities found this to be time‑barred because the last date for submission of such forms was fixed as 31‑5‑1960.
3. Since no action was being taken on their Claim Forms despite hectic efforts by the appellants in pursuit thereof they filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W.P. No.356‑R of 1973). This was accepted and the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Lahore was directed "to issue the entitlement certificate in favour of the appellants as expeditiously as possible". This order was passed on 21‑11‑1973 but no action was taken on their case even after the above direction of the High Court. It was only on 27‑5‑1979 that they were informed that their entitlement certificate for 1376 Produce Index Units had been sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Lahore. Two days later i.e. on 29‑5‑1979 the appellants submitted an application to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, for issuance of orders to the relevant Authorities for allotting the land to them in satisfaction of their claim. In this connection, it was submitted that the issuance of the entitlement certificate had been delayed for no fault of theirs and that the matter of allotment in their favour be treated as a "pending proceedings". On 4‑8‑1979, the appellants received an intimation from the Officer on Special Duty that the application had been rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on two‑fold grounds viz. (1) the Evacuee Laws stood repealed; and (2) the allotment stood banned under the Federal Government's order since 1973. This order of the Board of Revenue was impugned in Writ Petition No.887‑R of 1979.
4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted above writ petition observing that the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.356‑1, of 1973 dated 21‑11‑1973 should have been complied with as the obedience to law is the obligation of every functionary in the State. The claim of the appellants has been verified in 1958 and if the Authorities concerned failed to make out the entitlement certificate notwithstanding the earlier writ issued by the High Court "the rights of the citizens cannot evaporate into thin air". The learned Court further observed that inaction of the Authority could not result in deprivation of the right of a citizen, notwithstanding the ban on the allotments and the repeal of law' in the meanwhile. Moreover, the repealing Act (Act XIV of 1975) itself provided for disposal of "pending" cases in accordance with the repealed law. The case of the appellants for. purposes of allotment remained pending on account of one thing or the other to be done by the Authorities and the appellants should not suffer for their inaction. The writ petition was, accordingly, accepted and the learned Member, Board of Revenue with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was directed to pilot available land to the appellants in lieu of their verified claim on the basis of which Entitlement Certificate had already been issued them, within the next three months.
5. On appeal, however, a learned 'Division Bench in' a detailed judgment held that the effect of the order dated 21‑11‑1973 in Writ Petition No.356‑R of 1973 was that the proceedings in respect of issuance of the entitlement certificate became pending proceeding but proceedings for issuance of the entitlement certificate could not be equated with allotment proceedings Because under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme it ova` only after a claimant's entitlement had bees' verified and determined on the entitlement certificate issued the it hr became eligible for allotment of the land in satisfaction thereof. Separate proceedings then took place. The verified claim is sent to the District Field Staff of the Settlement Organization with a view to make actual allotment of agricultural land. As no proceedings were pending for allotment of agriculture land. As in Pursuance of the entitlement certificate of the appellants which entitlement had not come in to existence in fact before the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (.XIV of 19'75), the case of the appellants to be corsid_2red to be a pending case. It was emphasized that the proceedings pending prior to 1‑7‑1974 the date of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were riot the proceedings ‑with respect to allotment; hence the appellants did not have any absolute right to obtain the allotment of any particular piece of agricultural land. The conclusion arrived at was that as no provision of law existed obligation respondent No.1 to make the allotment to the appellants in respect of their: entitlement certificate, after the repeal of the Act with effect from 1‑7‑1974, the direction of the learned Single Judge to make an allotment was not sanctioned by law. Accordingly, the appeal of the respondent herein was accepted and the order of the learned Single Judge set aside.
6. After hearing Syed Hussain Muhammad Naqvi, we are inclined to agree with the enunciation of the law made by the learned Division Bench and hold that it was right in reversing the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Be that as it may, we think that the appellants have been with very harshly and unjustly. The claim of the appellants was verified by the Claims Officer vide order dated. 13‑8‑1958. The appellants applied for preparation and issuance of the entitlement certificate to the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, as early as 30‑4‑1959. The claim ‑form of the appellants remained pending with him for nearly six months and was returned thereafter with the objection that the original certified copy of the verification order may be attached with the form. After obtaining the certified copy of the verification order, the form was again submitted on 25‑8‑1960 but no action was taken thereon on the plea that it should have been filed before 31‑5‑1960 overlooking the fact that the forms were firstly filed in time on 30‑4‑1959 more than a year prior to the terminal date. The case was merely one of supplying an omission. All the miseries of the appellants have resulted from this initial mistake committed by the Settlement Department. Thereafter, despite the acceptance of their writ petition on 21‑11‑1973 no relief was granted to them. Although the appellants may not have been very active in pursuing their claim thereafter and in the meantime certain orders were passed banning further allotments but, on the balance, we are satisfied that the appellants have been far more sinned against, than sinning.
8. We would, therefore, while dismissing the appeal observe that we expect and hope that every effort shall be made in this case to adjust the claim of the appellants by allotting them some land which may still be available so that complete justice may be done in this case.
9. This appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. M.I. /A‑283/S Appeal dismissed.