SALAMATULLAH Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHANG

1. USMAN ALI SHAH. J .‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court has arisen from the judgment and order dated 29‑5‑1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby, Writ Petition No.1120‑R of 1966 of the appellants against the order dated 16‑7‑1966 of the Settlement Commissioner in Revision Petition No.217 of 1964 was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are stated to be that the appellant No.1 and Muhammad Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of appellants Nos.2 to 5, being displaced persons were settled in Chiniot. A portion of the disputed property No.140 Ward No.13 known as Muslim Sarai came in their possession from 1‑I1‑1948. The said property in dispute was built on Khasra No.12646/8078 by the non‑Muslim Evacuee before 1947. This property at that time was situated outside the Municipal Limits of Chiniot and subsequently in 1956 it came into the Municipal Limits of District Chiniot. Appellant No.1 and Muhammad Din (deceased) predecessor‑in‑interest of appellants Nos.2 to 5 filed C . H . Forms for the transfer of the said property while the other occupants, however, did not file any such Forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner Chiniot while assessing the value of the property more than Rs.10,000, transferred the same under paragraph I of the Schedule attached to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; to the appellants vide his order dated 21‑12‑1960.

3. Respondent No.4 filed a Review Petition before the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Jhang against the transfer order dated 21‑12‑1960 in favour of the appellants. He alleged that Khasra No.12646/8074 over which the house in dispute existed in 1947, was allotted to him as an agricultural land by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) against his verified claim of land at Khata No.9, as per copy of R.L.II (Annexure 'D'). A perusal of R.L.II reveals that at the time of proposal for allotment made in favour of the respondent No.4 there was a note given on RL‑II that there exists house of non‑Muslim evacuee on Khasra No.12646/8074 and hence this Khasra is in the form of built up area. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner after obtaining permission for review of the order dated 21‑12‑1960 from the Additional Settlement Commissioner, held an inquiry and after receiving reports/ evidence from different agencies, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 26‑9‑1961 cancelled the transfer of property in dispute in favour of the appellants by holding the property as 'land' and allotted the same to respondent No.4.

4. The appellants filed appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 26‑9‑1961 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 4‑1‑1963 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direction to determine on which Khasra number the house in dispute is built. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20‑9‑1963 held that the land on which residential property exists had rightly been transferred as 'land' to the respondent No.4. Against this order of ‑ the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the appellants filed appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 20‑2‑1964 dismissed the same. A revision petition of the appellants before the Settlement Commissioner Jhang against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 16‑6‑1966.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 16‑6‑1966, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.1120‑R of 1966 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the Writ Petition, dismissed the same vide his order dated 29‑5‑1974. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the judgments of the learned High Court as well as of the lower Courts, we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this appeal which merits dismissal outright. The functionaries in the Settlement Department have determined the status of the disputed` property as agricultural land. In this connection inquiries were held"' and the parties produced their evidence. The appellants were unable to establish by evidence aliunde that the property was a built up` area of permanent character before partition. On the other hand the, respondents were able to show that the disputed property was an agricultural land and in this connection they produced oral as we11 as documentary evidence of very reason4ble character. It is a matter of record that at the time of Independence this Khasra number which measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas was agricultural land and was included in the special Jamabandi vide Annexure R/3. Round this Khasra all the land was cultivated, and a few Kothas on a small part of this land were meant only for purposes subservient to agriculture look at Khasra Girdawari (Annexures P‑4 to P‑7) will show kanal area of this plot remained under cultivation u0to Kharif 1953. Under these circumstances, the concurrent findings of the functionaries of the Settlement Department that the disputed property was agricultural C land cannot .be possibly questioned. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants relates to a question of fact, which has already been adjudicated upon the proper consideration of all the material on record, which was rightly not interfered with in Writ jurisdiction and the Writ Petition was rightly rejected.

7. We, therefore, find no reason for any interference by this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.

8. M.I./S‑181/S Appeal dismissed.