MANGTA vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Bhakkar and 29
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as time-barred. The controversy arose from the reduction of the petitioner's land allotment by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and a subsequent compromise in a constitutional petition where the petitioner agreed to retain a portion of the land while informers took the rest. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and merits of invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the matter and challenge the compromise and settlement allotments. The Supreme Court held that the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was entirely misconceived, as the petitioner's entitlement was fixed at 200 kanals and any additional claim based on a compromise with private parties was of no concern to the settlement authorities. The court laid down the principle that a party whose entitlement is legally fixed cannot challenge the disposal of resumed units or seek to reopen settled matters regarding third-party claims through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable to reopen settled land allotments based on a compromise?
- Can a petitioner claim land beyond their fixed statutory entitlement from settlement authorities based on a private compromise with informers?
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the disposal of resumed units by settlement authorities once their own entitlement is determined?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 20-5-1992 whereby an application filed under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed in limine on the ground that it was time-barred.
2. The background of the controversy was that the petitioner had received allotment of extensive lands against his verified claim. On the information laid by respondents in W.P.No,1062/R of 1978 (Abdul Samad Khan and Fateh Muhammad) the Chief Settlement Commissioner reduced the allotment to 200 kanals directing resumption of the excess equal to 2243 P.I. Units which was ordered to go to informers vide order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 29-12-1976. This was challenged by the petitioner by recourse to Writ Petition No,1062/R of 1978 instituted on 12-10- 1978. The petitioner withdrew this Constitution Petition in view of a compromise having been arrived at between him and the informers whereunder the petitioner was to retain 500 Kanals 10 Marlas of land out of 1968 Kanals 4 Marlas of land, and the remaining land was to be retained by the informers. The High Court while allowing the withdrawal did not go into the merits of the case at all.
Subsequently the petitioner filed a Review Application in avoidance of the compromise and the withdrawal of the Constitution Petition. This review was disposed of with the following order:- "Learned counsel for the parties had stated that the parties had compromised and in that view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition which was accordingly disposed of on 24-10-83. It is stated that the Revenue authorities are not accepting the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of in view of the compromise of the parties. That is exactly what had been done earlier. The writ petition had been disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is so agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. The application is thus disposed of."
3. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit on 18-12-1985 which failed. The appeal also failed and the civil revision in the High Court was withdrawn with a view to take up the matter by an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. In moving this petition under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner contended that the informers had no claim at all which required the settlement nor was his original allotment in excess. He wanted the entire matter to be reopened for his benefit. According to him, even the agreed area of land to the extent of 500 Kanals 10 Marlas has not been given by the Settlement authorities to him .
5. So far as his claim to 500 Kanals 10 Marlas of land is concerned it is based on a compromise with the private parties, the Rehabilitation authorities playing no part in it. His entitlement being of 200 Kanals, he cannot claim anything more from the Settlement Authorities. If he wants to claim under the compromise, then he has to get it from the respondents/informers, after they have got it.
6. As regards the genuineness of the pending claim of the informers, that should be no concern of the petitioner once his entitlement is determined and fixed at 200 Kanals. How the disposal of the resumed units takes place is not his concern.
7. In the circumstances, the application of the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was entirely misconceived. No case is made out for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.