Rao KHALIL UL REHMAN vs ALLAH BAKHSH And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a land allotment dispute. The petitioner challenged an allotment of 86 Kanals of land originally made to one Abdul Ghani on 17-1-1961. The petitioner's initial claims, based on mortgagee units and inheritance from Mst. Rashidan, were rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the petitioner had already received allotments exceeding his entitlement and lacked locus standi. The High Court, in the impugned order, upheld the rejection, finding that allotments against mortgagee units were not permissible under the relevant scheme and that the petitioner had already received his full share of inheritance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the inheritance had not devolved prior to the date of the original allotment. The Supreme Court found no legal defect in the High Court's reasoning, affirming that the petitioner's claim was barred by the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, maintaining the validity of the original allotment in favour of the respondents.
- Can an allotment of land be claimed against mortgagee units under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Does a person have locus standi to challenge a land allotment if they have already received allotments in excess of their entitlement?
- Is an inheritance claim valid for land allotment purposes if the devolution occurred after the date of the original allotment?
- Paragraph 9-A, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--In this case the dispute land, measuring 86 Kanals, had been allotted to one Abdul Ghani on 17-1-1961. The petitioner disputed the allotment but his plea was turned down by the A.R.C. On 15-4-1963 on the ground that as he had already secured allotment in excess of his entitlement, he had no locus standi to dispute the allotment made in favour of Abdul Ghani. The petitioner's appeal also failed on 28-6-1965. The petitioner, however, succeeded in revision but the revisional order was challenged by respondents 1 to 4, who had, meanwhile, purchased the land from Abdul Ghani. Their Writ Petition No. 4-R of 1976 was accepted by the impugned order, dated 14-5-1980, whereby the appellate order, dated 28-6-1965 was restored.
2. The case of the petitioner is based on (1) mortgagee units and (2) inheritance from Mst.
Rashidan. Both the claims are thoroughly examined by the High Court but rejected. The High Court held that allotment against mortgagee units could not be claimed under the Scheme and that petitioner had already received allotment in excess of his share of inheritance from Mst. Rashidan.
In any case, it is not shown that the inheritance had devolved prior to 17-1-1961 when the allotment had been made in favour of Abdul Ghani. That being so, the case of the petitioner was 'hit by paragraph 9-A of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.
3. After hearing learned counsel we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court does not suffer from any legal defect such as would call for an interference by this Court. The petition for leave appeal is, therefore, dismissed.