QASIM BIBI and others Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs and others

ORDER

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This order will dispose of both the petitions as the parties, facts and questions of law are common. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber, whereby their Constitution petition filed against the order of cancellation of their allotment was dismissed.

2.The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was refugee from Azad Jammu and Kashmir, who was allotted agricultural land measuring 124 Kanals in the revenue estate Jadda and Piran Ghaib, District Jhelum against entitlement of 11200 PIUs of his claim in lieu of maintenance. In the year 1953, the limits of Municipal Committee were extended thereby including the disputed area. In the year 1964, the Government of Punjab acquired 35 Kanals 3 Marlas out of the entitlement of the petitioners for the construction of T.B. Ward in the District Headquarters Hospital, Jhelum. The petitioners were thus left with only 75 Kanals 8 Marlas. Out of this land, the respondents were allotted 29 Kanals 14 Marlas against their rural claim. The predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners challenged in appeal the above allotment to the respondents, which was accepted on 20-10-1962 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Jhelum, holding that after the allotment of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, being A.J.K refugees, the same could not be allotted to claimant displaced person. The case was remanded for fresh decision in which the petitioners succeeded. This order was challenged by the respondents in appeal which was accepted on 12-9-1964. In revision filed by the respondents, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by order dated 6-10-1982, came to the conclusion that transfer of the land under the Supplementary Scheme No,II to the respondents was legal and valid. The petitioners filed Constitution petition which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3.Mr. Raja M. Anwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners was a refugee from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and therefore the agricultural land allotted to him could not in view of Para. 4-A (ix) of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme No,II. Be allotted to respondents as it stood excluded from the pool for the allotment of the land to other displaced persons in lieu of their verified claim of land. The learned counsel has referred to Dost Muhammad and others v. Mst. Badal Jan and others (1976 SCM R 112) and Muhammad Azim and others v. Ali Mohtashim and others (1994 SCM R 555).

4.Mr. Hafiz SA. Rehman, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Para. 4-A related to agricultural land, whereas the disputed land was included in the Municipal limits and in an urban property. The learned counsel has referred to Abdur Rahim and others v. Hassan Muhammad and others (1992 SCM R 827). In this judgment, it is stated that the land allotted to the petitioners was held to be urban agricultural land. In the present case, there does not seem to be a clear finding that at the time of allotment in January 1953, the disputed land was held to be an urban agricultural land. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that it was so declared but it seems that the declaration was made in the year 1964. Considering all the circumstances of the case, we grant leave to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are in possession of the disputed land. The parties shall maintain status quo till the final decision of the appeal.