' Instant civil revision assails judgments and decrees, dated 21-5-1995 and 8-10-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby suit of respondents for declaration and possession was decreed and appeal of the petitioners was dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that Mushtaq Khan deceased respondent being a refugee from Jammu and IC.Ahsmir State, was temporarily allotted suit land, who on a prescribed form applied to the competent authority for permanent allotment of the land in his possession. His Form No,4225 was accepted and an amount of Rs,4690 was deposited by him in the year, 1981. The land so allotted continued to be in possession/ownership of the allottee, which was never cancelled by any competent authority, but subsequently it was allotted by the Settlement Authorities in the name of respondent No,3 on the Basis of PL-II Nos.18 and 19 vide Mutation No,472. Deceased Mushtaq Khan aggrieved of allotment of his land in the name of respondent No,3 filed a suit for declaration with possession of the land in question, which was said to have been transferred to different parties through Mutations Nos A74, 476, 678, 452 and 519, transferees of which were also arrayed as parties to the suit. Plaintiff pleaded fraud, collusion and misrepresentation in support of the decree prayed.
3. Petitioners who were defendants in the suit, being transferees from the original allottee from the Settlement Department, contested the suit and claimed a lawful transfer in their favour. A number of preliminary objections were raised and it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that they being bona fide purchasers for value, cannot be deprived of their land Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned Civil Judge, seized of the suit, after doing the needful vide his judgment and decree, dated 21-5-1995 decreed the suit of Mushtaq Khan deceased respondent.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessfull as the same was dismissed on 8-10-1998.
' Thereafter, instant revision petition was filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees for their annulment. Respondents in response to notice have appeared through their counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither the land in dispute was allotted to Mushtaq Khan deceased respondent nor the same could have been allotted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee as the same was part of the compensation pool created by section 4 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act, 1958. It was further argued that if at all, some allotment order was passed in favour of the deceased respondent, the same having not been implemented in the revenue record, did not create any right in his favour. It was also urged that the respondent No,1 allegedly got allotted it without seeking its implementation in his favour and the right if any, held by him cannot be made basis to contest a lawful allotment in favour of the petitioners by the competent Settlement Authorities. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, land in question was purchased by their father through Mutation No,476, hence their right cannot be defeated on the basis of mere assumptions. It was also argued that both the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that Exh.P.17 was not a certified copy of public record and an objection regarding its admissibility was raised at the time of its production, which was deferred till the decision of the main suit, but was not adverted to at the time of final decision. His precise submission is that after exclusion of Exh.P.17 from the record there remains nothing on the file to substantiate decree passed in favour of the respondent. Reference was made to the judgments in the cases of Feroze Bibi v. Settlement Commissioner (Land) and another 1988 SCM R 1228, Noor Muhammad and others v. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Collector, Vehari and others (1991 SCM R 1283), Munshi etc. v. Settlement Commissioner etc. (NLR 1980 Civil 575) and Alaf Din v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Gujranwala and 3 others (2002 CLC 1657) to contend that allotment in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners was lawful. The decrees impugned were also assailed on the ground that suit of the deceased respondent Mushtaq Khan was barred by limitation, as he did not file it within twelve years from the date of allotment.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioners, supported the concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below and urged that land once allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees would not become part of the compensation pool constituted under the settlement laws for onward allotment to any refugee. According to him, allotment in favour of Mushtaq Khan deceased was made from the land allocated for rehabilitation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees out of quota given to the Ministry for Kashmir Affairs.
7. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The evacuee character of the land in dispute is not denied by the parties and the only question which hinges for determination is as to whether land temporarily allotted to a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir for maintenance purpose, could be allotted to somebody else without its formal cancellation. There is no evidence on the file showing that the land allotted in the name of Mushtaq Khan deceased was ever cancelled by the competent authority. In order to prove allotment as Jammu and Kashmir refugee plaintiff/respondent had produced "Parchi Taqseem" on the file as Exh.P.17 which contained the land subject of suit. Exh.P.17 is not certified copy rather is an attested copy, verified to be according to the record of Kashmir Colony Rathian (Jhelum) issued by Kanungo (J&K) which did not only remain un-rebutted but gets corroboration from application of Mushtaq Khan (Exh.P.2). Even exclusion of this document from consideration, does not render the case of the respondent that of no evidence. The other evidence included certified copy of the application filed by the deceased respondent for grant of permanent rights Exh.P.2. He also produced challan/receipt as Exh.P.1 showing that under order of permanent transfer of land he deposited an amount of Rs,4690 in the year 1981. The above discussed evidence proved beyond any shadow of doubt that land equivalent to 469 units at the rate of Rs,10 per unit was allotted to Mushtaq Khan deceased respondent, which was never cancelled subsequently. In like circumstances, question of cancellation of such land and its allotment to some other allottee from settled areas, was considered in a number of cases and ultimate finding was that such land could not be allotted by the Settlement Authorities as the same even on cancellation, does not become part of the compensation pool. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the cases of Mst. Sakina Bibi and another v. Mamla and 2 others (PLD 1977 Lahore 202), Samand Khan v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1993 CLC 1536), Muhammad Din and others v. Allah Lok and others (1989 SCM R 323) and Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1991 SC 391). In view of the these judgments legal proposition has been settled that land temporarily allotted for maintenance to Jammu and Kashmir refugees, goes out of the compensation pool and vests in Ministry of Kashmir Affairs from the date of its allotment. Both the Courts below concluded the lis in accordance with the settled proposition of law and committed no illegality/irregularity amenable to revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Adverting to the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding suit being barred by limitation, I have no reason to differ with the findings concurrently returned by the two Courts below on this point. Allotment by the Settlement Authorities in favour of predecessor of the petitioners i.e, Ali Ahmed was ab initio void and the same was made at the back of the plaintiff, without cancelling his allotment. Suit from the date of his knowledge thus was within limitation and could not' be thrown out as barred by time. Besides it plaintiff had explained the delay by showing that he being an Army Personnel, became POW in East Pakistan in the year, 1971 and on his release he came to know of the allotment when he immediately filed the suit, hence in this situation issue of limitation was correctly answered by the two Courts below.
9. For the reasons noted above both the Courts below correctly, decided the lis and did not commit any illegality/ irregularity, calling for interference by this Court. This revision petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.