YAQUB KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE AND Another

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner got certain land on his Claim Form No. 10855, claiming to be the heir of one, Samey Singh. On a complaint by Rehmat Ullah, respondent, that the land was procured on a false pretence, the Settlement Commis--sioner (Lands), by his order dated the 23rd of June 1971, in the exercise of his powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, as the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner, cancelled the property obtained by the petitioner against his claim mentioned above. The petitioner went in revision to the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.

2. The learned Judges have held that the finding that the peti--tioner was not related to Samey Singh, was a finding of fact, which was reached by the Settlement authorities on a valid appreciation of the relevant record. It is pointed out that, in the pedigree-table received from India along with special Jamabandi, the petitioner was not shown to have any relationship with Samey Singh. Under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, the order of the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner could be challenged in revision only on a question of law. As the learned Judges in the High Court have remarked, no legal question arises in the case. Whether or not Samey Singh was connected with the petitioner was a question of fact, which the petitioner had failed to establish, and the procurement of property by him on the Claim Form No. 10855 on that basis could not have been sustained.

3. The learned counsel argued that in giving his finding, the learned Settlement Commissioner did not take into account the evidence of certain oral witnesses, who were produced before him, and that the High Court has also failed to notice this fact. It is true that the Settlement Commissioner, in his order, has referred to the evidence of some oral witnesses and not to all of them, which may be due to an oversight. We allowed the learned counsel to show us the statements of the witnesses, who are not mentioned in the order of the Settlement Commissioner, and after examining the same, we do not think that the case of the petitioner is advanced in any manner. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that while cancelling the property obtained by the petitioner under Claim Form No. 10855, all his property, including that which he had obtained under other claim forms, has also been cancelled. This point was raised in the High Court also, and it was observed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that "the cancellation is only in regard to the property obtained against Claim Form No. 10855, and that the petitioner cannot have any grievance, as no action relating to the other claims was taken against the property obtained against those claims". According to this observation, the property obtained by the petitioner under his claims, other than Claim Form No. 10855, remains intact, as no action seems to have been taken thereunder so far. This petition is dismissed.