MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs KARIM BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS

1. ' MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-49 kanals and 17 marks of land comprising Kbasra Nos. 80, 444, 218, 219, 220, 221 and 222 situated in Kishan Garh, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot was allotted to Ghulam Rasul, a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, for his maintenance and that of his family in the year 1955. This allotment was admittedly made under the Rehabilitation Act and not under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme.

2. ' Ghulam Rasul died leaving certain heirs. Muhammad Khan and other appellants, who are also refugees from Jammu & Kashmir, applied for the allotment of that land to them. The result of the last order of the Settlement Department being against them, they filed a writ petition, which was dismissed. Hence this intra-Court Appeal.

3. ' Although the appellants do not deny that the allotment was made in favour of Ghulam Rasul, that it was not made under the Settlement Scheme referred to above, that it was made for their maintenance and that he was a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, they stress that since they are claimants' while Ghulam Rasul was not, they are entitled to the allotment of the land, because Ghulam Rasul had died. It is not denied by them that Ghulam Rasul died leaving heirs. It is, however, asserted that the heirs of a temporary allottee could not succeed to that allotment, but there is nothing in the Law, which would support this unsustainable assertion.

4. ' The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants overlooks the provisions of paragraph 4-A, Chapter II of the West Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme under which his clients claimed the allotment of the land in dispute in their favour. The relevant portion of paragraph 4-A runs as follows: "4-A. The following categories of land will not be allotted under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and will remain excluded from the Scheme :-

(ix) land allotted on temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees."

5. In view of the facts already given above this land was excluded from allotment under the Scheme and since allotment was being claimed under the same Scheme by the appellants, they had no right to it.

6. ' Learned counsel has adverted our attention to Allah Ditta and another v. Raja Saeed Akhtar (1) but the facts of that case were entirely different. In any case a bare reading of paragraph 4-A of the Scheme leaves no manner of doubt in one's mind that such land as has been described in it is not available for allotment.

7. ' We respectfully agree with the order of the learned Judge in Chamber, and dismiss this appeal as having no force whatsoever. Ile appellants shall pay the costs of the respondents.

(1) PLD 1973 Lah. 215