MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN Division And Other
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Upon an informer's application (Mukhbari application) filed by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, the petitioner's land allotment was reduced by 178 P.I. Units as being in excess of entitlement, and the withdrawn land was subsequently allotted to the informer. The petitioner did not dispute obtaining excess allotment but claimed a right to purchase the excess land taken from him. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to retain or purchase the land in preference to the informer. The Court held that under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the informer possessed a statutory right to receive the land withdrawn from the petitioner's allotment following the information supplied. Finding no merit in the petitioner's claim, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Does an informer who files a successful Mukhbari application have a statutory right to receive land withdrawn from an excess allotment under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can an allottee who obtained excess land claim a right to purchase the excess land over an informer entitled under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Section 14(1-A), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: --Upon a Mukhbari application filed by Fateh Muhammad, predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.4 to 9, the allotment of the petitioner was reduced by 178 P.I. Units on the ground that these were in excess of his entitlement. The land so withdrawn from him was allotted to Fateh Muhammad. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition before the High Court. In his petition, he did not dispute that he had obtained excess allotment but claimed that he was entitled to purchase the land taken away from hip. His petition was dismissed by the High Court. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we find no merit in this petition. Under subsection (1-A) of section 14, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, Fateh Muhammad had a statutory right to receive the land which had been withdrawn from the allotment of the petitioner consequent upon the information furnished by him. This petition is dismissed.