EJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs CHAHAT And Other

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 23-2-1985 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.

2. Umaid son of Suraj Mal was said to have secured an allotment of about 188 Kanals of land in village Ahmadpur Sial of District Jhang against his claim relating to the land abandoned by him in India. Out of the said allotment, one Wali Muhammad obtained 115 Kanals and 19 Marlas by way of exchange. Later Wali Muhammad gifted the land so obtained to Abdul Majid who then sold it to the petitioner.

3. Chahat, respondent No. 1, filed a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act before the Settlement authorities alleging that Umaid had never migrated to Pakistan but was still living in India and that some one impersonating for him had obtained a fraudulent allotment in his name. An Additional Settlement Commissioner held an inquiry and found substance in the allegation made in the Mukhbari application. Accordingly, by an order, dated 30-10-1975 he cancelled the entire allotment of 188 Kanals of land made in the name of Umaid.

4. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. In support of his petition he raised two contentions. His first contention was that he being a bona fide purchaser for value the Additional Settlement Commissioner ought to have given him an adequate opportunity of hearing before making the impugned order. His second contention was that since he had been in possession for a considerable time he was entitled to purchase the land under section 3 of the Act XIV of 1975.

5.The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition did not record any finding on the first contention but as regards the second contention he observed that the claim of the petitioner for the purchase of the land under Act XIV of 1975 was a matter which had to be attended to by the relevant authorities and that the petitioner should approach those authorities for relief. With this observation the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition.

6. In support of this petition for special leave all that is contended is that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner canceling the allotment was illegal, as it had been passed without notice to him despite the fact that he was a bona fide purchaser of the said land. It is difficult to accept this contention as it is contrary to the decisions of this Court reported as Manzoor Hussain v.

Fazal Hussain and others 1984 SCMR 1027 and Gul Muhammad and others v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others 1985 SCMR 491. Accordingly the prayer for leave to appeal is refused.