RAHIM BAKHSH through Legal Heirs vs ASSISTANT
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition concerning the cancellation of land produce index units. The core legal question involves whether excess land units could be cancelled and subsequently allotted to an informer without notice or established fraud on the part of the original allottee. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed by the High Court, noting that precedents dictate an informer is only entitled to excess area under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 if the original allotment was obtained by fraud or was bogus, rather than through mere miscalculation by the field staff. The Court ordered that status quo shall continue pending final disposal of the case, thereby establishing that cancellation and subsequent transfer of land without proper consideration of fraud versus miscalculation warrants a thorough review on appeal.
- Whether an informer is entitled to the transfer of excess land units under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 when the excess was caused by a miscalculation of the field staff rather than fraud?
- Whether an order cancelling land units can be sustained if passed without notice to the affected parties?
- Whether a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of settlement units and subsequent transfer via mutation is liable to dismissal under the circumstances?
- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The brief facts of the case are that, Claim Form No,7538 was submitted by one Saroopa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the same was verified by the Central .Record Office and land equivalent to 1355 PIUs was confirmed in his favour in village Bhoe Asal on 16-3-1955.
2. On 5-1-1969 Girdawar Halqa reported that the said Saroopa who held land in India as landlord or occupancy tenant was entitled to only 871 PIUs in Village Bhoe Asal, Gaggar and Ghandi Autar.
3. The report which, according to the petitioners, was based on wrong allegations, was made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 14-1-1969 against which the petitioners filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, which although, was accepted and the case was remanded for a fresh disposal, but respondent No,1, who then dealt with the case of the petitioners, cancelled the Units held in excess vide order dated 27-5-1976. The petitioners filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore but without any success. Thereafter, the land in question was confirmed in favour of respondent No,2 who further transferred the same in favour of respondent No,3 vide Mutation No,1067 which was sanctioned on 29-5-1970.
4. The petitioners challenged the orders by a Constitutional petition but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 12-6-1995.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that order of cancellation was passed in the case without notice to the petitioners and that, in any case, the petitioners were entitled to purchase the excess land, if any, on deposit of the amount due especially when they were in self- cultivating possession of the land in dispute. It has been further contended that respondent No,2 was not entitled for allotment of any land as his claim form was not transferred to village Bhoe Asal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Mst. Nasiran v. Mst. Rabia (1992 SCM R 693) wherein it was held that informer would be entitled to the transfer of excess area under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 if allotment of cancelled land is found to have been obtained by fraud or the same was bogus. It was further held that where excess land was obtained due to miscalculation of produce Index Units on the part of the field staff and not due to fraud, informer would not be entitled to transfer of excess area. In the present case, apparently, there were no allegations that excess area had been allotted in favour of the petitioners' predecessor on account of any fraud practised by him.
6. Leave is therefore, granted to consider whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners was liable to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. Status quo shall continue pending final disposal of the case.