' This order will dispose of 15 Writ Petitions, bearing Nos. 467/R/73, 523/R/73, 524/R/73, 525/R/73, 526/R/73, 527/R/73, 528/R/73, 529/R/73, 530/R/73, 531/R/73, 533/R/73, 534/R/73, 535/R./73, 536/R/73 and 5374R/73, These petitions are being taken up together because similar questions of fact and law arise therein.
2. The petitioners and in some cases their predecessor-in-interest were allotted land in lieu of their verified claims and as per their entitlement, in Village Taragarh, District Kasur, somewhere during the period 1951 to 1954 by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore.
3. In the year 1960, a Naib-Tehsildar made reports on the khatas of the petitioners that as per entries in the Khasra Gardawari for the year 1946-47, the petitioners were entitled to more land on the basis of additional Produce Index Units. Consequently on 20th June, 1960, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) confirmed more land on their khatas against the outstanding P. I.
Us to their credit.
4. In 1966, another Naib-Tehsildar (Member, Inspection Team), examined the relevant record and made reports on the various khatas of the petitioners. He pointed out that according to the entries in the special Jamabandis, for the year 1946-47, the petitioners' claims were completely satisfied by allotment of lands in lieu thereof and there were no outstanding Produce Index Units, in their favour for further adjustment. He recommended for cancellation of the land subsequently allotted to them, which according to him, was in excess of their entitlement. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) acting on his reports cancelled the allotments of excess land vide orders passed by him on 7th May, 1968.
5. The petitioners assailed the orders of cancellation of the excess allotment made in their favour by means of Settlement Revisions in this Court, which were remitted to the Settlement Commissioner, for disposal according to law.
6. The respondent No, 1 after hearing the petitioners maintained the order of cancellation of the excess land passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and dismissed Settlement Revision No, 52/68 in the case of Jalal etc. On 28th April, 1973, while all other revisions were dismissed by his orders dated 3rd May, 1973. The present writ petitions are directed against the aforementioned orders.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to para. 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, which is reproduced as under "Rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant in accordance with the entries in the special Jamabandis received from the prescribed areas of India.
Classification of evacuee land should be taken into account according to the entries in the special Jamabandis prepared for exchange with India and subsequent variations in the classification of soil should be ignored. If any hardship is caused by the application of this rule in individual cases a reference should be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan."
' He submitted that admittedly the entries in the special Jamabandis differ from those reflected in the Khasra Gardawari for the year 1946-47 and in such a situation the Settlement Authorities should have preferred the entries in Khasra Gardawaris for determination of the entitlement of the petitioners because that was the basic record wherefrom special Jamabandis were prepared. He contended that if the entries in special jamabandis were found to be unreliable and not genuine reliance was to be placed on entries in the relevant Khasra Gardawaris. For the year 1946-47. In support of his contention he relied on Umar Daraz v. Manzoor Ahmad and others(1). It was also argued that the Settlement Authorities were competent to go behind the entries made in the special jamabandis in case of hardship as provided in the last lines of para 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. It was next argued that the land in dispute was permanently settled on the petitioners as contemplated under section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, and was not liable to cancellation by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners did not complain against the initial order of allotment made in their favour for over six yea's but it was only thereafter that they forged entries in Khasra Gardawaris for the year 1946-47 and obtained allotment of excess land to which they were not entitled. He further submitted that on scrutiny the excess allot rent of the land was rightly cancelled by the competent authorities and re-allotted the same to other claimants against their unsatisfied Produce Index Units. It was further argued that respondent No, 1 had acted strictly in accordance with law by providing ample opportunity to the petitioners, getting recalculated the Produce Index Units in their presence, perused the record and maintained the order of cancellation of excess land subsequently allotted to the petitioners. It was also submitted by the counsel that the entries in special Jamabandis were neither interpolated nor spurious and therefore, reliable evidence which was acted upon by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as envisaged under para. 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. He submitted that the facts in Umar Daraz's case were distinguishable inasmuch as that there existed interpolations in the special Jamabandis but in the instant case the entries in special Jamabandis were neither interpolated nor spurious, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners had no relevancy in the matter. It was also submitted that in the exercise (1) 1969 SCMR of jurisdiction under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, read with para. 4 (c) Part I of the Rehabilitation Scheme excess land was liable to cancellation even after its permanent settlement on the petitioners. He cited Sher Mohammad v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1) in support of his contention. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court repelled the contention that permanent settlement within the meaning of section 15 of the Act could not be cancelled either under section 10 or section 11 of the Act and observed that settlement meant a lawful settlement or settlement in accordance with law and not settlement obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. It was also argued that the disputed land involved in Writ Petition No, 467/R/73, was purchased by Mushtaq and Mohammad Sharif vendees in 1972 and on a subsequent dispute between the vendees and the vendor a decree for special performance was also passed in their favour on 19th December, 1972 by Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The decree was followed by sanction of mutation in their favour on 12th January, 1973. It was stated that the instant writ petition was filed on 26th June, 1973 without impleading the vendees. It was asserted by the learned counsel that the petitioners cannot be permitted to implead them, at this stage, after lapse of over six years. He relied on Rawalpindi Improvement Trust v. The Government of Pakistan and others (2).
9. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, after consultation of the relevant record, recalculation of the Produce Index Units got done in presence of the petitioners and hearing them, held that the petitioners were allotted excess land than their entitlement. He concurred, as a matter of fact, in this regard with the findings of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Kasur. The petitioners cannot successfully assail this finding of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, especially for the reason that the petitioners' counsel did not contest the jurisdiction of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, to pass decisions in the matter. The orders dated 28th April, 1973 and 3rd May, 1973 passed by respondent No, 1 are neither violative of the relevant paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme nor suffer from any other legal infirmity so as to attract extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for interference in the matter. The petitioners were allotted excess land on the basis of entries in the A Khasra Gardawaris which were contrary to the entries existing in the special Jamabandis for the year 1946-47. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 rightly followed the provisions of para 29 of the Rehabilitation Scheme which provided guideline for the allotment of the land to be made in accordance with The entries in the special Jamabandis. Since there existed no interpolation or ambiguity in the entries in the special Jamabandis, therefore, the principle laid down in Umar Daraz's case was not attracted to the circumstances of the instant case. The petitioners were allotted land during the period 1951 to 1954 and had no grouse for more than six years when a Naib-Tehsildar in 1960 made some reports in their Khatas contrary to existing entries in the special Jamabandis for the year 1946-47.
10. It is well settled that this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the tribunals, if they were vested with jurisdiction to decide the matter in issue before them. For this view, I take support from the principle laid down in the case Nawab Syed Ronaq (1) 1971 SCM R 339
(2) PLD 1970 Lah. 760 All etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, observed as under:- "where there is jurisdiction to decide then as it is often said, there is jurisdiction to decide either rightly or wrongly, and merely a wrong decision does not render the decision without jurisdiction."
11. Furthermore the petitioners did not implead the vendees as respondents in Writ Petition No, 523/R/73 although, they had purchased the disputed property about six months prior to the filing of the petition. The vendees being directly affected persons were necessary parties to this petition.
The petitioners cannot be permitted after a lapse of about 7 years to implead them as party to this petition.
12. For the reasons stated above, and finding no merit in these petitions, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1973 SC 236