NUR MUHAMMAD AND 13 Others vs ABAD MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 5 Other

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in writ jurisdiction, whereby, accepting the writ petition of the respondents, it was held that the order made by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, verifying the respondents as equivalent to 4,236 units on their claim form No. 7223, was valid, and all the subsequent orders made on the review petitions and the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners, were without lawful authority. The aforesaid respondents were claimant displaced persons from Patiala State (Bharat). Three Fard-e-Haqiats were issued separately in their favour, which showed that they were entitled to allotment of land equivalent to 4,236 units.

2. They were allotted 841 kanals in Chak No. 323/J.B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, which was sub--sequently confirmed in their favour. Subsequently, on the 13th of June 1961, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan, made an order in the absence of the respondents that 30 acres of land out of the area allotted to them be cancelled and given to the petitioners, because, according to him, the allotment of the respondents had been reduced by 1,216 units. Coming to know of this order, the respondents filed an application before the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, against the reduc--petition in their verified area. The learned Officer, after examining the case, restored the previous verification, with the only variation that the land, which was previously verified as Nehri, was re---verified as Chahi, but this made no difference in the land as already allotted to the respondents, as the value of the Nehri and Chahi lands in terms of the produce index units was the same. The petitioners challenged this order by a review petition before the Officer on Special Duty, which was rejected. The petitioners then filed a second review petition, which was also rejected, but a third review petition filed in 1965 by the petitioners was accepted by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, on the 29th of April 1966, without any notice to the respondents, and it was held that they were entitled to an area equivalent to 2,968 units and not 4.235 units. The respondents filed a revision against this order before the Settlement Commissioner (Land) but failing to get any relief from him, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, with the result, as already stated above.

3. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has rightly held that paras. 61-A and 62 of the Rehabilitation Scheme lay down the manner in which verification of objections to Fard-e-Haqiats should be made. The claim of the respondents was duly proces--sed under these paras and the reduction of their area, as made by the Officer on Special Duty on the third review petition filed by the petitioners without any notice to the respondents, completely lacked jurisdiction and legal validity. It has been rightly observed by the High Court that if the petitioners felt aggrieved against the entitlement of the respondents, which, according to them, was in excess of their claim, they could move the competent Settlement authorities under section 11 of the Act for cancellation of the excess area. That remedy is certainly open to the petitioners. No exception can be taken to the order of the learned Single Judge. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.