MUHAMMADI KHAN Versus SUBHAN KHAN
These connected civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelling the allotment and confirmation of evacuee agricultural lands made in favour of the appellants. The respondents' previous allotments were cancelled under Martial Law Regulation No. 9, entitling them to preferential accommodation. After discovering bogus allotments through an informant application, the respondents sought allotment, but their claim files were improperly seized by Enforcement Police without cause. Despite an express directive from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restraining allotment until the files were returned, the authorities confirmed the disputed land in favour of the appellants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with costs, holding that the confirmation in favour of the appellants was executed in direct violation of lawful administrative directions and marred by material irregularities. The Court affirmed that displaced persons whose claims were unlawfully obstructed are entitled to preference, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
- Whether an allotment of evacuee land made in express violation of a restraining direction issued by a competent Settlement Authority is legally valid?
- Can claimants whose claim forms were improperly detained by enforcement authorities be deprived of their statutory priority or preferential rights for land allotment?
- Whether concurrent factual determinations regarding irregularities in settlement allotments can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal defect?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 9
1. S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑ ‑The abovementioned connected appeals have arisen by leave of the Court from the judgment and order dated 21‑12‑1973 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, whereby, Writ Petitions Nos.23‑R‑69/BWP, 36‑R‑69/BWP,34‑R‑69/BWP, 22‑R‑69/BWP and 24‑R‑69/BWP of the appellants against the judgment dated 30‑8‑1969 of the Additional Commissioner‑cum‑Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. In Civil Appeal No.106 of 1974 the brief facts are that Subedar Mohammad Khan appellant had filed his claim form in District Bhawalnagar in lieu of land abondoned by him in Bekanir State. According to him he was first allotted some land in Mauza Bhedwala in the year 1962. For his remdining units 32 kanals more were confirmed in his favour on 8‑5‑1965. The disputed land was confirmed in his favour on 26‑11‑1966. This allotment was challenged in ‑ appeal and revision by the respondents.
3. As regards Civil Appeal No.247 of 1976, it is alleged by the appellants that they were first allotted land in the border area of Mauza Ramnagar, District Bahawalnagar in 1959. Under the Martial Law Regulation No.9, their allotment was cancelled and their claim forms were transferred to Tehsil Minchinabad which were later on sent to Mauza Bhedwala in 1961. They however, did not place any material on record to show either their allotment in Mauza Ramnagar or the transfer of their claim to Mauza Bhedwala. The land in dispute was confirmed in their favour on 14‑11‑1964 at Khata No.74 of R.L.II Register of Mauza Bhedwala. This allotment was challenged in appeal by the respondents which was dismissed. The respondents then filed a revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who accepted the same along with other connected cases.
4. As regards Civil Appeal No.246 of 1976 one Chiragh son of Rala, the predecessor ‑in‑interest of the appellants was confirmed allotment of some land in Mauza Bhedwala on 1‑6‑1965. Appellant Ghulam Farid claimed to have sold the entire area to appellants Nos.4 to 6 . vide Mutation No.274. attested on 5‑6‑1969. In all the cases the allotment of the land was challenged by the respondents in appeal and revision, which was accepted in their favour.
5. As regards Civil Appeal No.245 of 1976, Mst. Fatima the present appellant had claimed that she was allotted some land earlier in 1958 out of which some land was approved to be Muslim Auqaf property which was cancelled and in lieu of that cancelled land she was allotted the land in dispute on 27‑7‑1964 against her 119 surplus produce index units. She had sold this land to appellants Nos.2 to 4 vide mutation No.271 dated 10‑4‑1969. This allotment was challenged like other cases in appeal and revision by the opposite party, which was accepted in their favour.
6. As regards Civil Appeal No.248 of 1974, Mst. Kaniz Begum appellant had claimed that some allotment was made in her favour on 27‑6‑1961. The land in dispute was also confirmed in her favour on 24‑5‑1966. According to her she sold the land in dispute to one Muhammad Hanif who was not shown as party in case. Her allotment was challenged by the respondents in appeal and revision, which was accepted in their favour.
7. The common facts of the abovementioned appeals are that the present respondents Subhan Khan and Sahjoo were confirmed some land in Mauza Jhuman, Tehsil and District Lahore against their claim forms No‑41901 and 43070 but the same was cancelled from their names under West Pakistan Border Area Regulation. Subsequently, a circular letter No.4581‑60/6036‑R(G), dated 1‑11‑1960 was issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the respondents should be considered as sitting allottees and also should get preference over other allottees. The respondents then transferred their claims to Mauza Bhedwala in Tehsil Minchinabad. After the receipt of these claim forms to Mauza Bhedwala one Muhammad Hayat and Zahoor Khan (Attorney of the respondents) submitted a 'Mukhbari' application against fraudulent allotment obtained by Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan who had been allotted 36 acres and 56 acres 4 kanals of land in their names respectively in Mauza Bhedwala. This 'Mukhbari' application ultimately succeeded and the Deputy. Settlement Commissioner (Land) vide his order dated 21‑12‑1973 cancelled the allotment of Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan. Two separate appeals were filed against the order of cancellation, one by Bhooray Khan against Subhan Khan etc. and the other by Kamal Khan against Muhammad Hayat etc. Both these appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. After the cancellation of bogus allotment from the names of Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan, some land was allotted to Muhammad Hayat informant. However, dispute arose regarding the other informant, namely, Zahoor Khan. Although he had himself no claim but the case of the respondents is that Zahoor Khan was acting as their attorney and was closely related to them.
8. Subsequently, as a revenge, Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan gave an application to the Enforcement Police alleging that the claims of the present respondents were bogus on account of which Sub Inspector Abdul Aziz took the claims from the Patwari into their own possession and an entry to that effect was made in the 'Roznamcha' Waqiati at S. No.226 dated 12‑4‑1964. The respondents submitted another application to the Deputy Commissioner who vide his order dated 3‑12‑1964 directed that the land in dispute should not be given to any one till the claims of the respondents are received back. In spite of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the land was confirmed in the names of the present appellants. The claims of the respondents were received back on 14‑9‑1968 by the Enforcement Staff who found nothing wrong in the forms. No explanation was given by the Enforcement Staff for keeping these forms from 1964 to 1968 pending with them. The confirmation of the land in dispute in the names of the present appellants was made quietly between 21‑4‑1964 and 26‑11‑1964. The respondents did not come to know about this confirmation in time. Although the claims of the respondents in the said land were before 12‑4‑1964 even they have been deprived of the allotment of the said land.
9. The respondents filed separate appeals against the said confirmation before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Bahawalnagar who vide his order dated 27‑3‑1967 dismissed the appeals of the present respondents. Aggrieved by the said order respondents filed revision petitions before the Additional Commissioner‑cum‑Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division who vide his order dated 30‑8‑1969 accepted revisions petitions of the respondents, set aside the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and cancelled the confirmations made in the names of the appellants with a direction that after the satisfaction of the claims of the respondents, the rest of the left over land thereafter be confirmed in the names of the present appellants on "first come first served" basis, particularly to Muhammad Khan appellant who should be given preference over all other claimants other than the present respondents.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner‑cum Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 30‑8‑1969, the appellants filed Writ Petitions Nos.23‑R‑69/BWP, 36‑R‑69/BWP, 34‑R‑69/BWP, 22‑R‑69/BWP and 24‑R‑69/BWP in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalnagar Circuit, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard all the connected Writ Petitions, dismissed all of them by his single order dated 21‑12‑1973. Hence these appeals by leave of the Court. Since the parties in the abovementioned appeals are more or less the same and the questions of fact involved in all these cases are common and arise out of the same impugned order of the High Court, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these connected appeals by a single order.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of all the connected appeals. The learned counsel for appellants urged that the proceedings taken by the respondents in appeal and revision were barred by limitation and suffered on account of laches. The learned counsel also urged that at the time of the allotment of land to the appellants the claim forms of the respondents were not available in the Estate as such no' allotment could have been made in favour of the respondents in the absence of their claims. It is a matter of record that Subhan and Sahjoo respondents in these appeals were confirmed allottees of Chak Jahman, Tehsil and District Lahore. Their allotments alongwith other persons were cancelled under Martial Law Regulation No.9 by the Border Area Committee, were not in any way in default 'for their cancellation. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his circular memo. No.4581‑60/ 6036‑R(G), dated 1‑11‑1960 issued directions to the Deputy Commissioners of various Districts to make every effort to accommodate such claimants. On cancellation of the land from Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan in Mauza Bhedwala on a 'Mukhbari' application by Muhammad Hayat Khan and Zahoor Khan attorney of the respondents, the same was available for allotment. The claims of the respondents were already transferred to Mauza Bhedwala but the said land was not allotted to the respondents merely because someone in the Department was interested in prolonging the matter so that Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan may be benefited by the delay. On the application of Bhooray Khan and Kamal Khan the claim forms of the respondents were taken into possession by the Enforcement Staff who kept these forms pending with them from 1964 to 1968 The Enforcement Staff returned the claim forms of the respondents without finding anything wrong in the forms without showing any reason for such delay by them. According to the memo. issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 3‑12‑1964 to Tehsildar Minchinabad, it was directed that he should wait till the return of the claim forms of the respondents from the Enforcement Staff and till then no allotment should be made. But in clear violation of the direction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) the land in dispute was allotted to the appellants without waiting for the return of the claim forms of the respondents.
12. We are of the view that the. Settlement Commissioner had observed some material irregularities in the initial allotment of the disputed land and has rightly accepted the revision petitions of the present respondents. Other points argued by the learned counsel for the appellants are relating to the questions of fact and not relating to the questions of law which have thoroughly been sifted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and have rightly been decided against the appellants.
13. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings recorded in the impugned judgments by the Courts below are based on due and proper appreciation of evidence on record and the learned counsel for the appellants were unable to point out any legal defect or infirmity therein. In the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons we find that all the connected appeals mentioned in the heading of this judgment have no merit for consideration of this Court. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals with costs.
14. M . I . / M‑533/ S Appeals dismissed.