The petitioner was allotted evacuee land comprising Killas Nos. 2/2/9 and 10/2 of Square No. 19 in [Chak No. 213/RBof Tehsil Lyallpur on temporary basis. B.-fore this land could be confirmed in his favour the Provincial Government and the settlement authorities entered into an agreement of exchange. In pursuance of this agreement some evacuee land including the land held under temporary allotment by the petitioner was exchanged by the Provincial Government with some State land. As a consequence of this exchange the land in question became the property of the Provincial Government and lost its evacuee character. It may be mentioned that the petitioner was a refugee claimant and he had his claim fully satisfied by obtaining allotment of some different land.
2. On 27-11-1973 one Muhammad Siddique moved the Collector for earmarking the land held by the petitioner for a graveyard. By an order dated 29-4-1976 the Collector allowed this application. The petitioner has moved this writ petition to challenge the said order of the Collector:
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was a tenant in the land in question under the Rehabilitation Authorities and that he continued to retain this status even after the exchange when the said land became the property of the Provincial Government. As he enjoyed the protection o Martial Law Regulation No. 115 he could not be ejected from it except in accordance with the provision of this Regulation. Consequently, the order of the Collector reserving the land for a graveyard was illegal. In support of his contention he referred to a case decided by this Court and reported as Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of the Punjab (PLD 1976 Lah. 328 ).
4. I do not think that I can accept the contention of the petitioner for there appears to be no basis for the contention of the petitioner that he enjoyed the status of a tenant in the land in question. It is to be noticed that refugee claimants were initially allotted land by the Rehabilitation authorities only for the purpose of maintenance and later with the object of satisfying their claims. There is nothing in the Rehabilitation Schemes or the Acts under which these Schemes were framed which would indicate that the temporary allottes enjoyed the status of tenants vis-a-vis the Custodian or the rehabilitation authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to paragraph 40 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme .But that deals entirely with a different relationship, that is, the one existing between an occupant of evacuee land and the person to whom it has been allotted. On the other hand, as held in Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan () PLD 1962 SC 42), a temporary allotment is essentially in the nature of a grant which does not vest any right or interest in the allottee in respect of the property allotted. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner that he was a tenant in the land in question must be rejected. In view of this position his further assertion that after the exchange he became a tenant under the Collector or the Provincial Government also fails.
Martial Law Regulation No. 115 provides protection to tenants and as the petitioner is not a tenant he cannot invoke the said Regulation for the protection of his possession.
5. Finally the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Collector ought not be permitted to eject the petitioner except in accordance with law. No doubt the impugned order does contain a direction of the Collector that the petitioner should be ejected from the land in question but I have no doubt in my mind that this direction of the Collector would be executed in the manner provided by law.
6. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.