JHANDA KHAN vs NAWAB DIN AND Other

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Some agricultural land allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his mortgagee rights under the Land Settlement Scheme No. 1 was on account. Of curtailment of his entitlement by the Central Record Office, cancelled by the Rehabilitation authorities. Being aggrieved by the order the petitioner brought the orders of the Rehabilitation authorities before the High Court in writ jurisdiction for quashment on the ground that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to review the earlier order of allotment and confirmation of the disputed land in his favour.

2. The learned Judges found that the entitlement of the petitioner was curtailed by the Central Record Office and the Rehabilitation authorities had under the rules implemented their order and as such the question of reviewing the earlier order of allotment and confirmation of the land in favour of the petitioner did not arise in the case. On merits it was found that the petitioner had obtained allotment of land in excess of his entitlement and the same was rightly taken away by the Rehabilitation authorities. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.

3. The copy of the fard-i-haqiat produced by the petitioner shows that the land owned by the petitioner in India was equal to 260 produce index units. Admittedly he has been allowed to retain land of larger value. In addition the petitioner held mortgagee rights equal to 859 produce index units from a Muslim owner who has also migrated to Pakistan. Under paragraphs 7 and 7-A of the Settlement Scheme the petitioner was not entitled to allot--ment of any land against mortgagee rights and the Central Record Office had modified his earlier fard-i-haqiat on this basis though it appears that the procedure laid down in the scheme for compen--sating mortgagees of this class was not applied to the case of the petitioner. It was urged that the petitioner had since the order of cancellation became entitled to buy the land allotted to him in lieu of mortgagee rights and that he had already deposited a part of the sale price in the Government treasury, but this may be of no avail to the petitioner for before the Scheme under which lie claims the right of purchase was promulgated the land had already been allotted to the respondents 1 and 2 and under the Land Settlement Act, 1961, became their absolute property.

4. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider only the application of paras. 7 & 7-A of the Land Settlement Scheme to the mortgagee rights held by the petitioner. Security Rs. 1,000.