MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB (SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION

' SHAFIUR .RAHMAN, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the direction given by the High Court by the impugned judgment to treat an unsuccessful proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as pending proceedings so as to entitle the informers to get their pending claim satisfied from . Any available land in Punjab in spite of repeal of the Act.

2. The writ petitioners, informers now respondents Nos.1 to 33 claimed to be displaced persons from East Punjab settled in Chak 265/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan where they received temporary allotment.

They got their verified claim settled therein but not in its entirety as it was declared a congested district. According to them the other respondents by means of forgeries in revenue record and false declarations got themselves treated as temporary allottee of this Chak, got their verified claims transferred from other districts and settled in this Chak. The round of appeals, revisions filed by them failed in 1955. In 1963 they moved against their allotments applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Act which initially succeeded on 13-8-1963. This order was, however, declared by the High Court to be without jurisdiction as the officer passing it was not delegated with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner. The writ petitioners repeated their applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Act before officer having jurisdiction in the matter. The application was rejected on 24- 9-1969. The writ petitioners successfully challenged this order up to Supreme Court and succeeded in obtaining a remand order for treatment on merits. On 4-11-1982 their application was rejected on merits. They challenged it by Writ Petition (10-R/1983). They did not succeed on merits but under compromise they were able to obtain 2 acres from the contesting respondents but as regards their remainder unsatisfied units the High Court observed as under:-- "As regards the balance units of the petitioners which are few hundred only and have not been settled all through these years notwithstanding that the 'proceedings' had remained 'pending', it is directed that these shall be satisfied by allotment of land wherever it is available. The learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner is directed to see to it that the unfortunate claimants or their heirs are allotted available land anywhere in Punjab by his notified officer as soon as is possible within the next six months. It will be open to the petitioners to point out any area available. The learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner shall see to it that allotment in lieu of the pending unsatisfied claim of the petitioners is made and possession delivered to the petitioners within the aforesaid period of six months as the agony of expectation has gone long, too long. With these observations, the petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the proceedings pending in the case could be taken only to be those instituted on an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act and not the satisfaction of the pending claim as such. The application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act having not succeeded at any stage had concluded. If the respondents had succeeded in those proceedings, their entitlement under the law (Act XXXVI of 1974) could have extended to the resumed land to the extent of their claim pending for allotment and if the resumed land had already been allotted to some other person, the allotment to the extent of such land will be effected by way of choice from the available land for allotment in the same Province. Failing these two alternatives, they were entitled to cash award of such amount as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may decide. An unsuccessful informer could not claim these rights under the law.

4. The respondents/writs petitioners being unsuccessful in their application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act could not on the basis of either the repealing law or Act XXXVI of 1974 seek benefit of allotment from an available land. It is only on their being successful in their application that they could. Claim adjustment against the resumed land or the other alternative available land. The pendency of the claim itself did not amount to pending proceedings. In congested districts, there was a ceiling on allotment and whatever units were left unsettled, beyond the ceiling, had to be taken out and settled in some other district. One could not keep the excess units in the district and then claim ,that it remained pending so far a settlement in that district was concerned.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted the following cases in support of the order passed by the High Court:--

(1) Nawab Din v. Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1979 SC 846);

(2) Syed Ali Ibne Muhammad, and others v. Province of Punjab, Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing through Member, Board of Revenue (1988 SCM R 1789);

(3) Muhammad Hisamuddin Ansari v. Chief Secretary, Sindh and 8 others (1990 CLC 1766 Karachi);

(4) Ghulani Hussain and others v. Syed Shahida Ali and others (1987 CLC 2412 Lahore);

(5) Allah Ditta and others v. M.B.R./C.S.C. And others (1983 CLC 219);

(6) Khalilur Rehman v. Assistant Custodian (Survey), Evacuee Property, Karachi and 5 others (1986 CLC 2590 Custodian of Evacuee Property Sindh); and

(7) Abdul Sattar and others v. Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala and others (1988 M LD 1321).

6. On examination of the facts of the cases and the law laid down therein we find that none of them deals with the situation like the present one i.e,, an informer being unsuccessful and yet succeeding in getting a direction from the High Court. Where the direction given by the High Court is manifestly against the raw it cannot be allowed to remain.

7. In the circumstances, this appeal is accepted. The judgment of the High Court in so far as it directs a settlement of the pending units from anywhere in the Province is set aside. No order is made as to costs.