Mst. MAMIN And Others vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) MULTAN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a land dispute concerning the allotment of approximately 36 Kanals of land in village Dunyapur, District Multan. The matter originated from a previous High Court order dated 6-6-1977, which remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner to determine if respondent No. 2 held pending entitlement units. If such units existed, the land was to be allotted to the respondent; otherwise, the petitioners' existing allotment was to remain intact. Following a report from the Central Record Room, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the respondent's entitlement to 423 units and allotted the disputed land accordingly. The petitioners challenged this decision, questioning the mode of re-verification used by the authorities. The High Court dismissed the challenge, finding that the factual determination of the respondent's entitlement to 423 units was established and not effectively rebutted. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that where a factual finding regarding entitlement is supported by record and remains unchallenged by contrary evidence, the specific mode of verification does not invalidate the allotment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can a land allotment be challenged solely on the basis of the mode of verification when the underlying entitlement is factually established?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the authority to allot land based on a re-verification of pending units following a remand order?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- In the earlier Writ Petition No.729/R of 1970, between the same parties, the High Court had, on 6-6-1977, by consent of the parties, remanded the matter to the Settlement Commis--sioner with the direction that the disputed land measuring about 36 Kanals in village Dunyapur, Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan, be allotted to respondent No.2 "if on re-verification some units are found pending satisfaction in his favour" but that if the respondent had no pending claim, the allotment made to the petitioners was to remain intact. The learned Settlement Commissioner called for a report from the Officer Incharge, Central Record Room, Board of Revenue, according to which the respondent was entitled to get 423 units. As he had a prior right to allotment, the disputed land was confirmed in his favour in satisfaction of his pending units vide order dated 20- 8-1980. The petitioners chal--lenged the order by filing Writ Petition No.669-R of 1980 but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 21-9-1980.
2. The grievance is as to the mode of re-verification. This plea has been dealt with by the High Court and it has been held that "Irrespective of the mode of verification of the entitlement of respondent No.2, it has been found as a fact that he was entitled to 423 units". Nothing was produced before the High Court to show that the conclusion of fact in regard to the entitlement of the respondent was incorrect. There is, therefore, no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed.