Haji FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This is a reference by the Lahore High Court requesting that the Supreme Court may, of its own motion, direct under Article 9 of the High Court Establishment Order, 1970 (President's Order 8 of 1970) that Settlement Revision No. 79 of 1969 pending in the Lahore High Court and Writ Petition No. 1563/R of 1966 (re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 23 of 1967), pending at Quetta before the Sind & Baluchistan High Court by consolidated for hearing by one of these High Courts so as to avoid a conflict of decisions. This Reference was necessi--tated by the fact that none of the parties to these proceedings was willing to move an application in this behalf under the said Article.

2. The facts necessary for the understanding of the Reference are that Haji Faqir Muhammad (petitioner in Settlement Revision No. 79 of 1969), a displaced person from East Punjab, was pro-- posed the allotment of evacuee land in village Luliani, Tehsil Qasur, and also in village Ichhra, both in the Lahore District, against his verified claim for agricultural land abandoned in India. He however, did not to wish obtain any land in Lahore District and instead got his claim transferred to Quetta where certain area of land was allotted to him. This allotment led to the institution of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 6, 7 and 28 of 1964 before the Quetta Circuit of the then High Court of West Pakistan. These were disposed of by a learned Judge of that High Court on the 24th March 1966, and the question of allot--ment of two khasra numbers in dispute was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner, Quetta, for fresh decision.

3. However, in the meantime, the learned Settlement Commis--sioner (Legal), purporting to exercise powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, passed an order on the 26th April 1969, holding that Haji Faqir Muhammad had practised fraud in obtaining the allotment of evacuee urban land in the revenue estates of Luliani and Ichhra in the Lahore District, as well as in Quetta, and in having his claim transferred to Quetta. The learned Settlement Commissioner, on these find--ings, directed that the entitlement certificate issued in favour of Haji Faqir Muhammad should be cancelled. This order has been challenged in Settlement Revision No. 79 of 1969.

4. The writ petition pending at Quetta, vie., Writ Petition No. 23 of 1967, seeks to challenge the correctness of the allotment made to Haji Faqir Muhammad mainly on the ground that he could not obtain urban evacuee land in lieu of verified claim for agricultural land.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the questions involved in the two cases are not identical and, therefore, it is not necessary to consolidate them for hearing before one High Court. In the Settlement Revision the main question is regarding the entitlement of Haji Faqir Muhammad to obtain any land whatsoever on account of the fraud alleged against him.

6. If the order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner is maintained by the High Court, the writ petition pending at Quetta will become infructuous. If, however, the Settlement Revision is decided in favour of Haji Faqir Muhammad, then the writ petition at Quetta can be pursued on its own merits by the parties concerned. In these circum--stances, we would leave the respective cases to be decided by the High Courts where they are at present pending. We would, however, direct that the settlement revision pending at Lahore be decided as expeditiously as possible, and during its pendency the hearing of the writ petition at Quetta may be postponed by the Sind & Baluchistan High Court.

7. The Reference is answered accordingly.