Syed ABDUS SALAM vs THE WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE (THROUGH COLLECTOR, LYALLPUR) AND 11 Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the cancellation of a land allotment (khata). The petitioner's khata was initially confirmed, but subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands, based on a report indicating the cancellation of the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat from the Central Record Room, rendering the right-holder ineligible for the allotment. The petitioner challenged this cancellation in the civil court, seeking a declaration of illegality, but the suit, along with subsequent appeals and revisions, was dismissed by the trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation order was justified as the petitioner lacked entitlement following the removal of the Fard-e-Haqiat. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner pursued an incorrect remedy by approaching the civil court instead of exhausting the appellate and revisional hierarchy established under the Land Settlement Act. The Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters is expressly barred by the relevant statutory provisions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding land allotment?
- Is a petitioner required to exhaust remedies of appeal and revision under the Land Settlement Act before approaching a civil court?
- Can a land allotment be cancelled if the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat is cancelled from the Central Record Room?
- Section 22, Land Settlement Act
- Section 25, Land Settlement Act
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The khata in dispute was confirmed in the name of the petitioner, and an appeal was preferred against this confirmation by respondents 4 to S, which was rejected by the A.
2. D. C., Lyallpur, on the 7th of September 1963.
3. However, on the 2nd of July 1965, the Chairman, Allotment Committee, exercising his powers as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands, cancelled this khata from the allotment of the petitioner, and made it over to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the following order :- "According to the report of the patwari, the claim form has been inspected. The entire Fard Haqiat has been cancelled from the Central Record Room. The right-holder is not entitled to obtain any area in lieu thereof. The confirmed area of this khata is being cancelled, as the right-holder is not entitled to get any area. The khata is cancelled."
4. The petitioner challenged this order in civil Court at Lyallpur to obtain a declaration that this order is illegal and without jurisdic--tion. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and so were the appeal and the revision brought before the District Judge and the High Court respectively, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
5. As the petitioner was left with no entitlement after the cancellation of the Fard-e-Haqiat from the Central Record Office, no exception can be taken to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In any case, the petitioner has misconceived his remedy by taking the matter to the civil Court instead of availing of his remedies of appeal and revision to the Settlement authorities, as provided by the Land Settlement Act. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts in such matters is expressly barred by the provisions of section 22 read with section 25 of the Land Settlement Act.
6. This petition is dismissed.