Mst. SAFAIDI And Others vs Ch. MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of land allotments originally sanctioned under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves whether a Mukhbari application filed in 1974 could legally challenge land allotments that had been previously scrutinized and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in 1958 and Martial Law authorities in 1961. The petitioners further challenged the validity of the Additional Settlement Commissioner's subsequent cancellation order, arguing it relied on a previously quashed decision and that the evidence used—documents in Hindi—was unintelligible to the court and counsel. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioners required detailed consideration. The Court held that the legal questions surrounding the finality of the earlier administrative decisions and the procedural propriety of the subsequent cancellation orders warranted a full hearing. The Court ordered that the interim relief previously granted on 10-4-1988 shall continue pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Can a Mukhbari application be entertained against land allotments that have already been scrutinized and upheld by competent authorities?
- Does an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a previously quashed decision hold legal validity?
- Can a court render a decision based on documents that are in a language neither the court nor the counsel can read?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--- Claim of Mangal Khan was verified. Mutation of his inheritance No. 20 was sanctioned on 30-5-1958. Allotment was made. On a complaint by some person that Mangal Khan had not migrated to Pakistan, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur decided that the aforesaid Mutation No.20 was correctly sanctioned. This is vide his order dated 15-11-1958.
Another application was moved before the Martial Law authorities. Ultimately the allotment was restored on 10-11-1961. Just before the repeal of the law on 30-6-1974, the respondent filed a Mukhbari application on 22-6-1976 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 that land of Mangal Khan was obtained fraudulently. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur cancelled the allotment vide order dated 16-5-1975. In pursuance of order in W.P. 10/1977 dated 15-2-1978 the case was, again, decided against the petitioners vide order dated 17-9-1981. It was challenged through writ petition No.41.3-R of 1987 which was dismissed on 17-6-1987. Petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that mutation and allotments having been scrutinised by the Deputy Commissioner who exercised powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and he having decided in favour of the petitioners on 15-11-1958 and also by the Martial Law authorities on 10-11-1961, there was no occasion or justification in law to entertain fresh Mukhbari application on 22-6-1974.1t was secondly contented that the application was only against petitioner No.1 and at worst she could be deprived of the rights vesting in her and not the other petitioners who were never party to the Mukhbari applications. Thirdly, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur dated 17-9-1981 challenged in writ petition is based on the earlier order of his predecessor dated 16-5-1975 which had already been quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.10-R/77 on 15-2-1978. Lastly, he contended that the documents initially produced by the respondents were all in Hindi. Neither the Court nor the counsel for the parties could read those. How on assuming that those were adverse to the case of the petitioners, decision could be rendered?
3. Contentions raised require consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,000.
Interim order dated 10-4-1988 shall continue. Appeal to be processed on present record subject to filing additional documents if desired.