SANAULLAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns the character of the disputed property situated within the Sialkot Cantonment, specifically whether it constitutes Government/Cantonment Board property or evacuee property, and whether the petitioner, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir who received an initial transfer of a portion of the land, was entitled to the transfer of an additional adjacent piece of land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the evacuee nature of the property and his entitlement to the additional land require detailed examination, especially since neither the Government nor the Cantonment Board had previously asserted that the land was not evacuee property during earlier transfer proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these matters further.
- Whether land situated within a cantonment limits and previously held on a lease in perpetuity can be treated as evacuee property?
- Can a refugee entitled to an initial transfer of property claim an extra piece of adjacent land under the Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme?
- Whether the High Court was correct in assuming the disputed property belonged to the Government or the Cantonment Board without prior assertion by those authorities?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 29-6-80 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner.
2. The property in dispute' in this petition falls in a largish Khata, measuring about 12 kanals, situate within the limits of Sialkot Cantonment. Prior to Independence it was owned by one Dewa Singh who had obtained the land underlying the Khata on a lease in perpetuity from the relevant authorities.
3. The petitioner was a refugee from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 25-1'0-1975 a portion of, the Khata was transferred to him. Subsequently, when the 'Management of Residual Available Properties Scheme came into force, he applied for the transfer of another two kanals of land adjacent to the area already transferred to him. His prayer was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by an order dated 4-2-80. He preferred an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the petition. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. The High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the land covered by the Khata was Government/ Cantonment Board property. The petitioner has called in question the correctness of this assumption and it is contended on his behalf that the Khata in dispute had always been treated as evacuee property and disposed of as such by the Settlement authorities.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs consideration. It does not appear that in the proceedings relating to the transfer of different portions of the Khata to the occupants thereof either the Government or the Cantonment Board had even taken up the position that the land underlying the Khata was not evacuee property. It also requires to be examined if on- the basis of his earlier allotment the petitioner could claim an extra piece of land. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents.