MEHRAB KHAN vs Mian FAIZ RASUL and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a Constitutional petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, Mehrab Khan, was entitled to the land units he claimed, or whether the authorities correctly withdrew surplus units based on a finding that the original allotment was based on a clerical error involving the common names of the petitioner and another individual, Turab Khan. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, noting that an inquiry had confirmed the initial allotment was erroneous due to the confusion of identities, and that the mistake was subsequently rectified by separating the verified claims. The Court held that the petitioner had received exactly what he was entitled to and that the reduction of surplus units was lawful. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions, affirmed the High Court's decision, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can an allotment of land be reduced if it is discovered that the initial verification was based on a clerical error regarding the identity of the claimant?
- Does the High Court have the authority to dismiss a constitutional petition if the underlying administrative order regarding land settlement is found to be in accordance with the record?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--On the information led by Mst.Safia Begum under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, against Mehrab Khan, cognizance was taken by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (C)/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, who after examining the entitlement and record of the case, found the petitioner Mehrab Khan entitled to 1481 P.I. Units.
2. ' The surplus 1570 P.I. Units were withdrawn. These were ordered to be allotted to the informer if her units were pending satisfaction otherwise the area was to be resumed in favour of the Central Government. This order was passed on 26-11-1976.
3. ' Mehrab Khan felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order. He invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court who by means of the impugned judgment dated 16-1-1985 dismissed his Constitutional petition.
4. ' The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who contended that there was no legal justification to reduce the allotment of the petitioner which had been made in accordance with his entitlement. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had no excess land and that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (C)/Additional Settlement Commissioner thus acted contrary to law.
6. We do not find any force in these contentions. The surplus area was withdrawn after the Additional Settlement Commissioner had consulted the record and made sure about the entitlement of the petitioner. Again, the same was re-examined by the High Court and the High Court was satisfied that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was in accordance with law. What actually happened had been mentioned in the order of the Lahore High Court and which is to the following effect:- "On 6-4-1959 one Turab Khan whose father's name was also Fateh Yab Khan r/o village Lekhi as is that of the petitioner made an application to the Tehsildar Shujahad to the effect that the claim of Turab Khan had wrongly been included in the amended claim of Mehrab Khan, the petitioner because the name of their fathers was common, on which application Turab Khan and the petitioner both were summoned. Both of them attended. In an enquiry in response to a letter No,432/A.D.C. Dated 11-10-1973 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Rural) to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, issued under Mukhbari application initiated by Mst. Safia Begum, the Central Record Office reported inter alia that initially on account of the common name of the fathers of both Mehrab Khan and Turab Khan, the area was wrongly verified on the claim form No,319 in favour of Mehrab Khan in Register Chhant Haqdaran at No,60 but afterwards the mistake was rectified and the area was separated and distinctly verified qua both of them on 12-5-1960 and sent to the District Office."
7. It is thus obvious that the petitioner had been given what he was entitled to. We, therefore, do not think that it is a fit case for leave. Dismissed.