Order dated 30.6.1983, whereby the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner proceeded to cancel allotment of land obtained in the name of Muhammad Yousaf son of Sondi (deceased) in village Dandian Tehsil and District Gujranwala under Sections 10 & 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and was resumed in favour of the state has been assailed through this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, whereas the same order is the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No, 18-R/1984 at the instance of the informers. The parties and the subject matter being common both the petitions have been argued together by the learned counsel for the parties and shall stand disposed of through this common judgment. The case appeared in the motion cause list, but as it is fairly an old matter, the learned counsel for the parties have argued the matter so that it may be disposed of finally.
2. The case of the petitioners in W.P. No, 242-R/1983 is that:-- "the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Koora Gujjar purchased the share from Ilim Din vide Mutation No, 276 dated 29.12.1962 and the share of Ghafoor vide registered sale-deed dated 4.4.60"
(Paragraph No, 3 of writ petition).
In clause-VI of Paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the grievance has been highlighted as under: "(vi) That the land in question was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and they are in possession of the land for the last more than 23 years. Therefore even if the land is to be sold it should be offered for sale to the petitioners.. Unless their rights existed the land cannot be resumed."
Vide the impugned order dated 30.6.1983, the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab Lahore has on scrutiny, examination and appreciation of the record and the evidence, come to the conclusion that Muhammad Yousaf (claimant/allottee) had died during communal disturbances and that Ibrahim was not a son of Muhammad Yousaf who had died issueless. It was thus observed by him that "Apparently all these fake proceedings were arranged by Kora vendee in connivance with other persons to grab evacuee property and cannot stand the test of scrutiny at all. When the claim itself was filed by an imposter then the structure built through entitlement certificate etc. falls to the ground as a house of cards. The game which started through fraud cannot be allowed to continue. As such all the allotment of land obtained in the name of Muhammad Yousaf son of Sondhi deceased in village Dandian Tehsil and District Gujranwala is hereby cancelled under Section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It shall be resumed in favour of State. The Assistant Commissioner (S), Gujranwala, should take over the possession of the land and carry out ejectment proceedings if necessary in accordance with law." Such findings of fact are based on appreciation of the evidence and examination of the record undertaken by him. There is nothing on the record to displace these findings and this Court is not in a position to substitute the same in writ jurisdiction. Any dispute regarding succession fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities in view of the principle stated in Ahmad Din vs. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 762), therefore, any objection to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner in passing the impugned order hardly has merit. The order, therefore, cancelling the allotment made in the name of Muhammad Yousaf does not admit of any exception and warrants no interference by this Court.
4. The case of the respondents (petitioners in W.P. No, 18-R/1984) is that being informants, after the cancellation of allotment of land, they were entitled to allotment. According to them, their informant was bona fide and refusal to allot the land to them was violative of Section 14(1)-A of the Displaced Person (Land) Settlement Act 1958.But they were non-suited with reference to the view taken in the connected matter titled Qutab-ud-Din etc. vs. Azmat Ali etc. declining them the benefit of allotment of the cancelled/resumed land.
4. Insofar as the plea of the petitioners being in possession of the land and claim of informers is concerned, suffice it to observe that in Lt. Col. (Retd.) Munir Hussain and others vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue and others (1987 SCM R 1240) such a competition inter-se the persons in possession and informers came up before the Court and the matter was dealt with in the manner that the vendees in possession "shall be transferred land in the terms of the first proviso of Clause (B) of sub-section (3) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (XIV of 1975)" and that "the three informants, namely, Lt Col. Munir Hussain, Lt Col. Nazir Hussain and Major Muhammad Khan (appellants Nos, 1, 2 & 10) the informers before Kh. Mahmud Sadiq will be entitled to the satisfaction of their claim pending in Hafizabad Tehsil out of the land which become, available after the sale to the vendees, as indicated above. " In this way both these petitions are disposed of observing that the case of the petitioners (vendees) for sale of the land in terms of proviso to Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975, will be considered and examined by the Board of Revenue Punjab out of the land cancelled/possessed by them; whereas the case of the informants will be reconsidered for allotment out of the cancelled/resumed land after determination of the entitlement of the vendees, subject of course to the entitlement criteria in accordance with law. The parties may approach the Member Board of Revenue Punjab/Chief Settlement Commissioner for this purpose.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.