SARDAR MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Mst. HABIB KHATOON AND Other Mst. HABIB KHATOON AND Other
This matter arises from civil review petitions filed against a previous judgment of the Supreme Court concerning land settlement and inheritance disputes. Allah Bakhsh, a displaced person, died leaving behind a widow, a son, and three daughters, including Mst. Habib Khatoon, whose name was initially omitted from the inheritance mutation. Upon revision, the Settlement Commissioner included Mst. Habib Khatoon as an heir and granted her a share in the estate. Subsequent purchasers of the land filed suits challenging the Settlement Commissioner's order. The core legal question was whether the civil suits were barred by section 25 of the Land Settlement Act, and whether the land had been permanently settled so as to take it out of the compensation pool. The Supreme Court held that since the settlement fees had not been paid, the allotment was never confirmed, and the land remained in the compensation pool, thereby attracting the bar under section 25 of the Land Settlement Act. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.
- Whether section 25 of the Land Settlement Act bars civil suits challenging orders passed by settlement authorities when land remains part of the compensation pool?
- Does the failure to pay settlement fees prevent the permanent settlement and confirmation of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959?
- Can a review petition be entertained when there is no apparent error on the face of the judgment regarding the pendency of proceedings?
- Section 25, Land Settlement Act
- Rule 7, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules 1959
- Rule 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules 1959
ORDER
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-Allah Bakhsh, a displaced person from East Punjab, after his migration to West Punjab, settled in Chak No. 475/E. B., Tehsil Vehari, District Multan. His claim was duly verified. He died in the year 1948 leaving behind his widow Mst. Almay (respondent No. 2), one son Muhammad Younus (respondent No. 4) and three daughters Mst. Zainab (respondent No. 3), Mst. Sahib Khatoon (respondent No. 5) and Mst. Habib Khatoon (respondent No. 1). On Allah Bakhsh's death, mutation No. 21 /261 was entered in the names of his aforesaid heirs other than Mst. Habib Khatoon, the first respondent. Having come to know of this omission, Mst. Habib Khatoon filed an appeal from mutation No. 21/261 before the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner (Lands), Multan, which, however, was dismissed on the 12th October 1964, as barred by time. On revision, the Settle--ment Commissioner (Lands). Multan, accepted it on the 19th November 1965, and directed the inclusion of the name of Mst. Habib Khatoon amongst the heirs of Allah Bakhsh and modified the said mutation and gave Mst. Habib Khatoon the 7/40th share in the estate of Allah Bakhsh.
2. Sardar Muhammad, the petitioner of Civil Review Petition No. 8 of 1970 and Muhammad Anwar the petitioner of Civil Review No. 9 of 1970 who claimed to have purchased the land from the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the year 1960 filed two separate suits calling in question the validity of the order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on the 19th November 1965, directing allotment of 7140th share of the land in favour of Mst. Habib Khatoon. In each suit, a prayer was made for temporary injunction restraining the defendants of the suits (the present respondents) from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The trial Judge granted a temporary injunction, but it was reversed by the Additional District Judge, Multan on the ground that section 25 of the Land Settlement Act was a bar to the maintenance of the suits. On revision, a learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that section 25 of the Land Settlement Act was not a bar to the maintainability of the suits and accordingly restored the trial Court's order granting temporary injunctions in the two suits. All the heirs of Allah Bakhsh, deceased including Mst. Habib Khatoon filed two separate appeals in this Court being Civil Appeals Nos. 204 and 205 of 1969. This Court, by its judgment, dated the 21st November 1969, accepted the appeals on the view that the suits filed by the present petitioners were barred under section 25 of the Land Settlement Act. The present review petitions are directed against the said judgment of this Court.
3. According to rule 7 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settle--ment) Rules, 1959, a displaced person to whom any land has been allotted under a scheme shall, subject to the proviso to subsection (3) of section 15, be deemed to have been permanently settled on the land so allotted to him with effect from the 24th day of December 1964, or the date of the confirmation of the allotment whichever date is later, provided that the allottee has paid settlement fees as required by rule 10. The proviso to section 15(3) prohibits the permanent settlement of land during the pendency of an appeal, revision or review in relation to that land. In this Court's judgment in the two appeals, it was taken that the revision petition of Mst. Habib Khatoon was pending on the 24th December 1964, with the result that there was no permanent settlement of the land in favour of the present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and their vendees, namely, the present petitioners.
4. Now, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was an apparent error in this Court's judgment with regard to the pendency of the revision of Mst. Habib Khatoon inasmuch as her appeal stood finally disposed of on the 12th October 1964. This contention does not appear to be correct inasmuch as in our judgment in the appeals we mentioned about the pendency of Mst.
5. Habib Khatoon's revision and not appeal.
6. It is next contended that the land having been permanently settled to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 before the target date, namely, the 24th December 1964, the land went out of the com--pensation pool with the result that section 25 of the Land Settlement Act was not attracted to this case. The learned counsel concedes that in this case the settlement fees the payment of which is a condition precedent to the confirmation of an allotment, were not paid. It, therefore, necessarily follows that the allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was not con--firmed. The land in question, therefore, continued to remain in the compensation pool even after the institution of the suits by the two petitioners. Accordingly, section 25 was attracted to this case and was a bar to those suits.
7. Thus, there is no substance in the learned counsel's second contention either.
8. The petitions for review are dismissed:
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM NABI AND 4 Other vs ABDULLAH AND 3 Other 1981 PLD Lahore 364