ABDUL BARI AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WITH POWERS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER), SAIHWAL AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of land allotments. The petitioners, displaced persons, were allotted urban land against rural claims. Following a mukhbari application, authorities determined the petitioners were ineligible for the urban land due to a lack of verified urban units. While one parcel was retained due to long-term possession, the disputed parcel was cancelled and re-allotted to eligible parties. The petitioners challenged these administrative orders through multiple writ petitions and appeals, all of which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to retain urban land despite lacking verified urban claims. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no right to the disputed land as their claims were not verified for urban units, a fact conceded by counsel during earlier proceedings. Furthermore, the Court declined to entertain a new argument regarding the right to purchase excess land under Martial Law Regulations, as it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and had not been agitated before lower forums.
- Can a party raise a new contention regarding the purchase of excess land under Martial Law Regulations for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does a displaced person have a right to retain urban land allotments when their verified claims are restricted to rural units?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the lack of entitlement to urban land based on verified claims subject to interference when conceded by counsel in lower courts?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Martial Law Regulation 84/89
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-The three petitioners are displaced persons from District Meerut (U. P.
2. India). On the 21st of November 1960, land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 5420/1, situated in the urban area of Montgomery (now Sahiwal) was proposed in their names and allotted on the 3rd of May 1961 at Khata R. L. It No. 153. Likewise, another piece of land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas 6 sarsahis comprised in Khasra No. 11014/1 situated in the same urban area was proposed in their names on the 27th of February 1963 and then confirmed afterwards on the 6th of March 1963 at Khata RL-11 No. 197. Afterwards however, respondent No. 3, filed a mukhbari applications against the petitioners alleging that they had fraudulently obtained these lands situated in the urban area against their rural claim without any entitlement. On this after the necessary enquiry on the 30th of May 1964, the Revenue Assistant/Deputy Settlement Com-- missioner (Land) Montgomery, found that these lands situated in the urban area could not have been confirmed against the verified claim of the petitioners for the rural lands abandoned by them in India. In his opinion however, the petitioners had remained in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas comprised in Khata No. 5420/1 for more than five years as its temporary allottees and it could not therefore be cancelled from their names on this ground. However, as to the 'and in dispute measuring 2 kanalas 14 marlas 6 sarsahis comprised in Khasra No. 11014/1 he found that it was in the temporary allotment of one Muffti Zia ul Haq who had remained in its possession according to the entries in the Khasra Girdawari and as such the petitioners were not entitled to retain the same. Therefore, the learned D. S. C. (Lands) while is missing the mukhbari application with respect to the land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 11014/ 1, accepted the same in respect of the land in dispute measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas 6 sarsauris comprised in Khasra No. 11004/1, and directed that the same may be considered for allotment to the eligible sitting allottees alongwith the informants in accordance with law. The two contesting parties filed their separate appeals against this order and it was set aside by a consolidated order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) on the 20th of March, 1965 on the short ground that the Revenue Assistant exercising the powers of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner "Montgemery had no jurisdiction to dispose of the mukhbari application under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. He therefore, remanded the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision. After the remand on the 1st of September 1965, the Deputy Commissioner with powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) for similar reasons adduced above, while cancelling the land in dispute measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas 6 sarsa his comprised in Khasra No. 11014/1 from the name of the petitioner allowed the other piece of land measuring 1 kanal 8 marl-is comprised in Khasra No. 5420/1/to be retained by them on the ground that they had remained in possession of the same for more than five years. He therefore, ordered that the cancelled land in dispute stay he confirmed in favour of the informants against their entitlement.
3. The petitioners then filed the Writ Petition No. 1236-8 of 1965 against the order in the High Court at Lahore, which was however, withdrawn by them on the 31st of January 1965 with permission to file a fresh one. Their Second Writ Petition No. 365-R of 1966 was also dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 30th of March 1966. They then filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 756 of 1966 against the judgment which was dismissed by a Division Bench both as barred by time and also on the merits. In considering the merits the learned Division Bench observed that it was conceded before them by -the counsel for the petitioners at the Bar that their claim was not verified for urban units and as such they had no right to the allotment of the land in dispute comprised in Khasra No. 11014/1 situated in the urban area. The petitioners then filed two successive review petitions against the judgment which were also dismissed on the 25th of May, 1976 and 7th of July, 1976.
4. The learned counsel next attempted to argue before us that at an rate, the petitioners were entitled to purchase the excess land in dispute resumed from their names under Martial Law Regulation 84/89. But we find that this precise contention was never advanced by the petitioners at before any of the competent authorities or even in the High Court. In these circumstances we are not called upon to express any opinion on this new contention for the first time raised in this Court in these proceedings.
5. For the foregoing reasons we find no force in this petition which is dismissed.