PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD
This matter concerns a dispute over evacuee property in Faisalabad, which the Provincial Government had exchanged for State land, thereby removing it from the compensation pool. The respondents, claiming to be temporary allottees, initially filed a writ petition. During those proceedings, the Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the Government would allow the land to be confirmed in the respondents' favour if they were found entitled under the applicable scheme, with the matter referred to a Settlement Commissioner for determination. However, the Settlement Commissioner failed to conduct this inquiry. Subsequently, the respondents filed a second writ petition, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court ordered the confirmation of the land in their favour based on the previous High Court order. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the High Court erred by ordering confirmation without the prerequisite determination of the respondents' entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court could not bypass the necessary factual inquiry into the respondents' status as claimants and temporary allottees.
- Can a High Court order the confirmation of evacuee property in favour of claimants without a prior determination of their entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a concession made by an Assistant Advocate-General regarding the transfer of land binding if the underlying factual conditions for entitlement remain unverified?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- -The dispute between the parties relates to the land falling in Square No.38 of Chak No.224/R.B. in the vicinity of Faisalabad City. It was evacuee property. For the purpose of expansion of Faisalabad City, the Provincial Government exchanged the land in dispute together with some other area with certain State land. As a result the land in dispute ceased to be a part of the compensation pool. The respondents who claimed to be temporary allottees of the land in dispute, filed a writ petition in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant Advocate-General made a concession that even though the land in dispute was no longer evacuee property, the Provincial Government was willing to permit it to be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the relevant law and the Scheme applicable so as to avoid dislocation of the genuine claimants This concession was accepted by the respondents and it was agreed that the best course would be to let the case be examined by a Settlement Commissioner to determine whether the respondents were entitled to the transfer. Apparently no further action was taken by the Settlement Commissioner to determine the entitlement of the respondents. Nevertheless, the respondents filed another writ petition claiming the land in dispute. .4 learned Single Judge in the High Court directed that the land in dispute be confirmed in favour of the respondents in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court. The Government seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. In support of this petition it is urged that in accordance with the earlier order of the High Court the Settlement Commissioner was required to determine the entitlement of the respondents. So far no such exercise has been carried out. In the circumstances it was not open to the High Court to give a direction that the land in dispute be confirmed in favour of the respondents. The respondents are yet to show that they had an unsatisfied claim, that the same had been transferred to Chak No.224/R.B. and that they were temporary allottees of the land in dispute. Till all these facts were established no order of confirmation could be made in their favour.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Government needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
S.Q./P-32/6 Leave granted.