MUHAMMAD DIN and 6 others vs ALLAH LOK and 3 others

ORDER

' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single judge of the Lahore High court, dated 29-8-1982.

2. The facts arc that Nanak, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee was given land measuring 118 kanals 13 marlas in village Panj Garaicn, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot, temporarily on 5-6-1959 for maintenance purposes only. In April 1974 the petitioners filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the cancellation of the said temporary allotment on the ground that the said Nanak had obtained permanent allotment according to his entitlement in certain villages of District Gujranwala in the year 1962. The respondents did not controvert the above allegation but they took the stand that a number of their units, duly verified, were still pending and that the land temporarily allotted to their predecessor-in-interest was liable to be adjusted against the said pending units but this plea was not accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 30-9-1976 cancelled the temporary allotment made in the name of Nanak and ordered its transfer in the name of the petitioners The matter was then taken to the High Court by the respondents through a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his impugned judgment.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Their case has been thoroughly examined by the learned Single Judge and while repelling their claim has observed: 'The upshot of the above discussion is that by virtue of the sale made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12 of the Land Settlement Act of all the land temporarily allotted to J & K refugees for the purpose of their maintenance, the said land of temporary allotment of Nanak had become the property of Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, Government of Pakistan in the year 1960 and, therefore, had been excluded from the compensation pool and the Chief Settlement Commissioner or the respondent delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction left to cancel the same and allot it to respondents 2 to 8 (now petitioners). In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the A.D.C. (C)/Chief Settlement Commissioner is declared to be of no legal effect as having been passed without lawful authority and direction is issued that said land he restored to petitioners (now respondents 1to 3): When the learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the above finding, he could not controvert the same and .Agreed. That the property in question is no longer part of the compensation' pool. Since the property is excluded from the compensation pool it has rightly been held by the High Court that it could not be transferred to the petitioners.

4. The petition is thus dismissed.