Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), PUNJAB VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AMJAD PARVAIZ
1988 S C M R 6
1988 S C M R 6
Present: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), PUNJAB--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AMJAD PARVAIZ and others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 866 of 1981, decided on 29th July, 1987.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-6-1981 passed in Writ Petition 435-R of 1975)
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)--
---S. 12--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Land settlement--Entitlement to transfer of land--Compromise order- Implementation of--Failure on part of functionaries of Settlement Department--Effect of--Temporary Allotment of agricultural land--Delay in confirmation caused because Government desired to exchange certain evacuee land with State land--Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court invoked by allottee respondents--Compromise order passed directing Settlement Commissioner to determine disputed question of fact and entitlement of allottee-respondents in accordance with relevant law and scheme--Entitlement of respondents established but at relevant time their claims were reported to have been transferred to another district by some fictitious person--High Court's order upholding entitlement of allottee-respondents and direction to implement compromise order, impugned by Settlement Commissioner--Held, if 1988] Settlt. Commr. (Land) v. Muhammad Amjad Parvaiz (Shafiur Rahman, J) concerned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner did not transmit verified claims of respondents to appropriate estate where it was to reach, literal effect could not be given to order of High Court with a view to deprive allottees of their entitlement, all other conditions being satisfied, only because of the failure of functionaries of Settlement Department itself --Pendency of claims in particular district by reference to this estate and its unauthorized transfer to another district, would entitle allottees to claim the land in terms of compromise order--Leave to appeal refused.
Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Razzaq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents 2, 3 and 4.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1987.
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Punjab, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-6-1981 whereby a direction was given to give effect to the compromise between the various claimants involved in the constitutional petition (W.P.10/66) which was disposed of by that order.
2. Agricultural land was allotted temporarily to the respondents on 4-5-1957 in Chak No.220-RB, Lyallpur. As the Government wanted to exchange certain evacuee land with the State land, these allotments were not being confirmed. The matter was brought to the High Court in a constitutional petition filed in 1966 wherein an agreed order was passed as hereunder:-
" ..... In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties agree that the best course would be to let the case be examined by a learned Settlement Commissioner, to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to determine the disputed question of fact just mentioned as well as the entitlement of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme. In case the learned Settlement Commissioner finds that the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of the land on account of their claim being pending in this estate on the date of the institution of the writ petition, he shall make the necessary order irrespective of the fact that the land no longer forms part of the compensation pool. If, however, he comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to the transfer of the land, because of the transfer of their claim to another revenue estate, or for any other reason in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme, he shall reject the petitioner's prayer for transfer of the disputed land. The learned Assistant Advocate-General wishes to make it clear that this concession is being specially made available by the Provincial Government in the interest of the settlement of claimant-displaced persons. It is further agreed by the parties that the decision of the learned Settlement Commissioner shall be final in so far as the Settlement Courts are concerned."
3. In implementing this decision, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) recorded the following finding:--
.According to the record available with the Settlement Clerk, the claim UR-V-5647/735 was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur on 10-6-1960 for 97 units after verification from the C.M.R. It was then transferred to D. R . C . , Lyallpur on 29-7-1963 vide entry No. 946 in the despatch register. The CA observed that as the claim had been transferred to Lahore by a fictitious person as stated by the claimant that the D.R.C. Lahore be informed."
4. The allottees were refused confirmation. Hence they instituted a constitutional petition. The contention prevailed in the High Court that as their claim was with the D.R.C. during the period 1960-66 before its unauthorised transfer to Lahore, the allottees were entitled to confirmation. Hence the entitlement was upheld and the compromise entered into by private persons, the allottees, was asked to be implemented by the Settlement Authorities.
5. Mr. Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of the compromise order earlier passed by the High Court, the respondents were not entitled to confirmation of land because their claim was not pending in the estate.
6. The order of the Additional Commissioner reproduced gives a clear indication that their claim had been received after verification in Lyallpur in 1960, that it was sent to the D.R.C., who was in charge of the Settlement work within the district in 1963 and if the D.R.C., did not transmit it to the appropriate estate where it was to reach, the literal effect cannot be given to the compromise order of the High Court with a view to deprive the allottees of their entitlement, all other conditions being satisfied, only because of the failure of the functionaries of the Settlement Department itself. The pendency of the claim in the Lyallpur district by reference to this estate and its unauthorised transfer to Lahore because no authority has held that it was an authorised transfer, would entitle the allottees to claim the land in terms of the compromise order referred to. There is no merit and leave to appeal is refused.
M.I. /S-67/S Petition dismissed.