Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JANGBAZ KHAN VS Respondent: SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
1992 C L C 318
1992 C L C 318
[Lahore]
Before Raja Afrasiab Khan, J
Major JANGBAZ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.6‑R of 1983, heard on 7th July, 1991.
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), Ss.l, 2 & 3‑‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑‑Allotment of land in dispute duly made in favour of petitioner in 1963 who was claimant displaced person and whose verified claim was never disputed, was challenged by respondent in 1981 by filing application under Sections 10 and 11 of Act (XLVII of 1958), on ground of fraud‑‑‑Authorities re‑opened case of petitioner on that application‑‑‑Act (XLVII of 1958) having been repealed in 1975 and no law being available under which Settlement Authorities could re‑open finalised allotment of petitioner, no jurisdiction was vested in Settlement Authorities to re‑open confirmed allotment of petitioner that being a transaction past and closed.
Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.
Ch. M. Nazir Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 7th July, 1991.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a claimant displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An entitlement certificate (Annexure `A') was issued in favour of the petitioner showing that he was entitled to the allotment of land equivalent to his 24530 P.I.Us. On the basis of this document some land was allotted to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 4‑3‑1963, vide Annexure `C'. An application was moved by the respondent No.3 on 12‑9‑1981, presumably under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the cancellation of the allotment made to the petitioner. On the application of respondent No.3, the case was re‑opened by respondents Nos.1 and 2 Learned counsel has challenged the proceedings being initiated for cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner by said respondent. He submits that the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed in the year 1975 and as such there was no law available under which the respondents could re‑open the finalized allotment of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Sher Afzal Khan v. Haji Razi Abdullah (1974 S C M R 228), and Malik Shahab Din v. Imdad Ali (1986 C L C 214). Learned counsel contends that he raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the respondents to re‑open the case. However, this question was not decided by him. In this behalf learned counsel has relied upon Annexure `F at page 21 of the petition.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that a fraud has been played by the petitioner inasmuch as he got an allotment of a graveyard and as such this was not at all a case of land within the meaning of law. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department also opposes the petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department that case of the respondents is covered under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 inasmuch as the said section deals only with the pending cases before the Notified Officers. By no stretch of imagination this case can be taken as a pending case within the meaning of the aforesaid law. In the circumstances the contention is repelled. The position which emerges is that the dispute land was allotted to the petitioner on 4‑3‑1963 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Verified claim of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents. Annexure `A' shows that petitioner is a claimant displaced person and has 23530 P.I.Us at his credit. The question whether or not the land was allotted to the petitioner is a question which cannot be appreciated in these proceedings. I would like to decide the fate of the petition on the short ground that Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed in the year 1975 and as such there was no law under which the application Annexure `D' could be moved by the respondent No.3 against the confirmed allotment of the petitioner. This being so, there was no jurisdiction vested in respondents Nos.1 and 2 to re‑open the confirmed allotment of the petitioner. This is surely a transaction past and closed.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned proceedings are declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./J‑121/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Petition allowed.