REHMAT ALI Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

ORDER

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM J. ‑‑‑A small piece of land measuring 44 Kanals forming part of Khasra Nos.1995, 4529, 6722 and 6723 situated in village Jamshed Khan, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, was allotted to the petitioner being in the cultivating possession vide order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur dated 16‑3‑1978. This piece of land alongwith others had been resumed under Martial Law Regulation 115 from one Nasibuddin by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur. Some litigation ensued and the matter reached the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, who came to the conclusion that Nasibuddin from whom the land was resumed was a displaced person from Non‑agreed Area and the resumption was under para.8 of the Martial Law Regulation 89 as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91. The resumption of the land was not under Martial Law Regulation 115 whereunder owners holding land more than the permissible area were required to surrender the land and the same was to be resumed. Consequently, he cancelled all the orders of allotment made by the authorities under the Land Reforms Regulations. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5952 of 1983 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order, dated 7‑2‑1988.

2. It is not disputed that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur, under Martial Law Regulation No.115 was wrong because the land was not resumed under that Regulation. The land, in fact, was allotted to a claimant from Non agreed Area and it was resumable under Martial Law Regulation 89 read with Martial Law Regulation 91. Therefore, the petitioner cannot retain the allotment made by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur, However, since the petitioner was allotted land on the basis that he was in possession thereof, the question arises regarding its disposal under the relevant law. Under the relevant law, Martial Law Regulation 89/91, para. 5, if the claimant from Non agreed Area had not opted to purchase the same the area was to be resumed and allotted to the person in possession. Apparently the claimant from Non agreed Area had not opted for its purchase at the relevant time. That being so the petitioner would be entitled to allotment of the land under para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation 89 as amended by Martial Law Regulation 91. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to apply to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kasur for exercise of his powers under para. 5 of Martial Law Regulations 89/91. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

AA./R‑203/S Leave refused.