ABDUL KARIM vs JOINT SECRETARY and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of an allotment of land previously declared as evacuee trust property. The core legal question concerned whether the disputed land, purportedly allotted to a private individual in 1963 and subsequently sold to the petitioner, was validly allotted or remained evacuee trust property subject to the jurisdiction of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The Supreme Court found that the respondent authorities had conducted a detailed inquiry, determining that no valid allotment order existed and that the relevant revenue records (RL-II) had been interpolated. Furthermore, the property had consistently been leased by the Evacuee Trust Property Board without objection from the petitioner or the original allottee. The Court held that the determination of the existence of a valid allotment order was a question of fact resolved by the competent authority after a proper hearing. Finding no legal infirmity in the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the property was correctly identified as evacuee trust property.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the validity of an allotment order when the lower authority has conducted a detailed inquiry?
- Does the interpolation of RL-II records justify the cancellation of an allotment of evacuee trust property?
- Is the determination of whether a property constitutes evacuee trust property a matter within the jurisdiction of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
- Section 7, Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975
- Section 10, Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 21-9-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,240-R of 1987.
2. The facts of the case of the petitioner are that the land in dispute measuring 94 Kanals and 10 Marlas, an evacuee trust property, was purportedly allotted on 18-6-1963 to Khair Din, respondent No,5 at Village Churkana, District Sheikhupura, in lieu of verified claim of his father Maula. The respondent No,5 allegedly made an application to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sheikhupura, for regularization of the allotment pursuant to Government's instructions dated 17-6-1971. The application was accepted by order dated 28-9-1971 with the direction that the land in dispute be excluded from the pool of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The petitioner claims to be a vendee of the property from the respondent No,5.
3. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 made separate petitions before the respondent No:2 under the provisions of sections 7 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for treating the property in dispute as evacuee trust property vesting in the Evacuee Trust Property Board constituted under the Act. The respondent No,2, by order dated 22-8-1981 assumed the jurisdiction. However, the Federal Government by order dated 15-2-1982 remanded the case for a fresh decision by the respondent No,2 on the question of jurisdiction. The respondent No,2 by order dated 3-2-1983 overruled the objections of the petitioner against the maintainability of the petitions.
4. By order dated 16-8-1984, the respondent No,2 declared the property in dispute as the evacuee trust property and cancelled its allotment and subsequent transfer from the names of the respondent No,5 and the petitioner respectively as being fraudulent and bogus. The revision petitions filed by the petitioner against order dated 3-2-1983 and 16-8-1984 were dismissed by the Federal Government, by order dated 10-12-1986. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,240-R of 1987 which was also dismissed by documents which reflected in the Revenue Record in the year 1977 through a mutation. Even after the allotment orders, the property in dispute continued to be leased out by the Evacuee Trust Property Board without being objected to by the petitioner or the respondent No,5. The respondent No,2 justifiably took the view that no valid order of allotment of the land or its confirmation was passed by the A Settlement Authorities at the relevant time. The entries on RL-II were also found to be interpolated. The existence or otherwise of a valid allotment order was essentially a question of fact which was decided by the respondent No,2 after holding detailed enquiry and hearing the parties to which no exception could be taken in .The facts and circumstances of the case: The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant to leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.