GHULAM RASUL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DASKA And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's land allotment. The core legal question was whether a refugee who was included as a family member in his father's maintenance land allotment was lawfully entitled to a separate, additional land allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been included in his father's family for the initial allotment, having claimed compensation regarding his father's allotted land, and having received a subsidy for a tubewell on that same land, could not claim an independent and unconnected status to obtain a separate allotment. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, affirming the cancellation of the subsequent allotment.
- Whether a person included as a family member in a refugee father's maintenance land allotment is entitled to a separate allotment?
- Does claiming compensation and subsidies in respect of a father' preclude a separate land allotment for a refugee claimant?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.----Fakar Din, father of the petitioner, was a refugee from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was allotted land in village Nawan Pind of Tehsil Shakargarh by way of maintenance. Among the members of his family, he included the petitioner as well. Subsequently, the petitioner also obtained another allotment in village Jhulki of Tehsil Daska by way of maintenance as refugee from the said State On a Mukhbari application the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that he was not entitled to a separate allotment after his father had already obtained land by way of maintenance. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the legality of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. His petition was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had nothing to do with the allotment obtained by his father and that on his father's death he was neither recorded as his heir nor treated as member of his family.
3. It is to be noticed that the father of the petitioner while obtaining the allotment had mentioned him as a member of his family. In 1971, the petitioner claimed compensation for the loss suffered on account of enemy action in respect of his father's allotment. Again, he obtained subsidy for installation of a tube-well on the land given to his father. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that he had no connection whatsoever with the allotment of his father. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.