Pakistan Case LawFARID and others Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments made under evacuee property laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, claiming to be co-sharers of land abandoned in India, were entitled to the allotments they received, despite the lack of verified claim forms in their names. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their entitlement, as the Settlement Department's records confirmed that no claim forms were ever filed or verified for them. The Court affirmed that the Settlement Authorities acted within their competence in cancelling allotments procured through misrepresentation and directing the adjustment of the land in favour of informers against their outstanding claims. The key principle laid down is that an allotment of evacuee land is invalid and subject to cancellation if it is not supported by a duly verified claim form, and that Settlement Authorities possess the inherent power to rectify allotments procured through misrepresentation or fraud.
- Can land be validly allotted under evacuee laws if the claimant has not filed a verified claim form?
- Are Settlement Authorities competent to cancel an allotment of land that was procured through misrepresentation?
- Does the absence of a verified claim form render an allotment of evacuee land liable to cancellation?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal from order dated 31-1-1993, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No, 1153-R of 1978, filed by them was dismissed.
2.The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that one Muhammad Yousaf son of Qabool Khan was owner of land in Mauza Satrana Tehsil Bhawani Garh, Patiala State. On migration to Pakistan, he filed claim form No, 94, and land equivalent to 160 P.I. Units was allotted in village Umid Garh and land equivalent to 628 P.I. Units was allotted in village Gobind Garh, Tehsil Kabirwala District Multan. The petitioners Diwan and Muhammad Bashir maintain that they were co-sharers with Muhammad Yousaf of the land abandoned by them in India, consequently the aforesaid land was jointly allotted to them with Muhammad Yousaf. Muhammad Yousaf died issueless therefore, the land in dispute was mutated in favour of Diwan.
3.It appears that on some information laid before the Central Record Office, the O.S.D., Central Record Room, on 16-8-1970, revivified the claim and found that Muhammad Yousaf alone was entitled to 128 P.I. Units. He accordingly issued fresh entitlement certificate and cancelled the excess claim. The matter came up before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 12-1-1972, cancelled 660 P.I. Units being excess of the entitlement. He, however, gave choice to Muhammad Yousaf for retention of the land equivalent to 128 P.I. Units. The aforesaid order was challenged through Writ Petition No, 61-R of 1972, which was allowed on 12-6-1973, for holding fresh inquiry into the matter. The proceedings were pending before the Additional Settlement Commissioner when the evacuee laws stood repealed. The Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, on 28-10-1978, found that the area equivalent to 660 P.I. Units was allotted in excess of the entitlement, he, therefore, directed cancellation thereof with the observation for adjustment against the outstanding units of the informers.
4.Aggrieved by the aforementioned order the petitioners filed Writ Petition No, 1153-R of 1978, which was dismissed as aforementioned.
5.The petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 claim as bona fide purchasers of the land from the allottees whereas petitioners Nos. 14 and 15 claim as genuine allottees in lieu of their valid claim. Learned counsel for petitioners in support of this petition contended that the petitioners Nos. 14 and 15 being co-sharers of land with Muhammad Yousaf had been allotted the land in dispute with him. Fard Haqiats were issued in their names and the same had wrongly been cancelled.
6.We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel but find no merit in them. The perusal of the impugned order as well as the parawise comments submitted by the Settlement Department clearly establish that petitioners Nos. 14 and 15 did not file claim forms for the land allegedly abandoned by them in India, therefore, no claim was verified in their names. Since no claim was verified, therefore, no land could legitimately be allotted to them. After due verification by the Central Record Office as well as Deputy Settlement Commissioner, it was found as of fact that they procured allotment of land by misrepresentation. The Settlement Authorities, therefore, were competent to cancel the allotment of land wrongly procured by them and to issue direction for adjustment thereof in favour of the informers against their outstanding claim.
7.The impugned order has taken care of all the pleas raised by the petitioners and passed the impugned order which is subject to no legal infirmity.
8.Resultantly, we find this petition devoid of substance. It is accordingly dismissed and .
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments