GHULAM NABI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court under section 21 of the Land Settlement Act, which upheld the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner refusing to cancel land allotted to respondent No. 5 under sections 10 and 11 of the same Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a preferential right as a sitting allottee to seek the cancellation of the respondent's land allotment and its transfer to himself. The Supreme Court held that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were not attracted as there was no fraud, excess entitlement, or prior cancellation of the respondent's allotment, and the petitioner had failed to object during the initial proposal and confirmation process. The Court ruled that an unchallenged and finalized allotment cannot be disturbed at the instance of a third party lacking locus standi, thereby dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal.
- Does a sitting allottee have a preferential right to seek cancellation of another person's land allotment under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Are sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act attracted when an allotment is not shown to be obtained fraudulently or in excess of entitlement?
- What is the effect of failing to object to a proposed land allotment within the stipulated time during open proceedings?
- Section 21, Land Settlement Act
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
1. ' SAJJAD AHMED JAN, J.-This petition for special leave to arises out of the dismissal of a revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court, under section 21 of the Land Settlement Act, against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, rejecting his application, under sections 10 and 11 of the same Act, for cancellation of the land allotted to respondent No,. 5, Mst. Maryam Bibi, in village Sian. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner was that being a sitting allottee in the aforesaid village, he had a preferential right to the allotment of the land, as against the aforesaid respondent, whose claim, according to him, had not been validly transferred to that village. The learned Judges of the High Court have observed that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were not attracted to the case, as it was not shown that the respondent had obtained the land in question fraudulently in excess of her entitlement, nor was the land in question in her name ever cancelled by any competent person, to give a locus standi to the petitioner to its allotment. It is rightly pointed out in the High Court's order that according to the procedure, an allotment is proposed in the first instance, to a claimant and fifteen days are allowed to elapse before the proposal is finalized. The confirmation of the allotment is done in an open meeting. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the allotment in favour of the respondent, nor did he at any stage challenge that allotment, which, thus, became final.
2. ' No defect is apparent in the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in giving this land to the respondent. The revision petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the. High Court, and we see no valid ground for interference. This petition is dismissed.