BASHIR AHMAD alias KALA vs KHUDA BAKHSH and others
The instant petition arose from a dispute over a plot of land comprising two khasra numbers in Jhang, which the petitioner had obtained transferred in his favour in 1973 from a Deputy Settlement Commissioner upon representing it as evacuee property. The respondents challenged the transfer through a civil suit, which resulted in mixed decrees by the trial court, subsequently modified by the District Judge who ruled in favor of the respondents regarding both khasras. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the competency of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to transfer the plot without evidence of it being evacuee property or part of the compensation pool. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as there was no documentary evidence showing the plot was owned by a non-Muslim or treated as evacuee property, rendering the transfer incompetent. The Court laid down the principle that property not forming part of the compensation pool or lacking proof of evacuee character cannot be legally transferred by settlement authorities.
- Whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner is competent to transfer a plot without documentary evidence showing it as evacuee property?
- Can a petitioner claim land is a graveyard to defeat a respondent's claim after having previously obtained its transfer as evacuee property?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to a plot of land falling in two khasras bearing Nos. 816 and 817, each measuring about 4 marlas, situate in Jhang. In 1973, the petitioner made a representation to the Settlement Authorities that the said plot constituted evacuee property and on the basis of this representation he obtained an order of its transfer in his favour from a Deputy Settlement Commissioner. On 6-4-1977 the respondents filed a, suit wherein they challenged the legality of the transfer. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of Khasra No,816 but dismissed it in respect of Khasra No, 817 on the ground that it was part of a graveyard. The petitioner as well as the respondent preferred separate appeals before the District Judge, Jhang.
The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but accepted that of the respondents and gave them relief in respect of Khasra No,817 also. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is to be noticed that there was no documentary evidence whatsoever showing that the plot in question was owned by any non-Muslim or was treated as evacuee property before the petitioner applied to the Settlement authorities for its transfer. Quite obviously, the plot did not belong to the compensation pool and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to transfer it in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one of the Khasras was part of a graveyard and therefore the respondents could not lay any claim to it. This contention is contrary to the position of the petitioner himself as he had got it transferred In his favour as evacuee property. If it was a graveyard it could not be treated as belonging to non-Muslims. In any event the latest Revenue Record does not show it as graveyard but describes it as a part of the abadi. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.