' MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Through the above captioned appeals', with the leave of the court, the appellants have sought the annulment of the judgment of the High Court dated 6- 3-2002. Both the appeals have been filed against the consolidated judgment of the High Court, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The succinct facts forming the background of the instant appeals, are that the land measuring 37 Kanals, .Comprising Survey No,190-min, situate in village Tarar, Tehsil Rawalakot, was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of appellants, late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, on 15-11-1958. Out of the aforesaid land, late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed surrendered the land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas, in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents, late Muhammad Sharif Khan. He while practising fraud got cancellation of land measuring 37 kanals, from the name of late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed through a decision of Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 8-1-1971. When late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed came to know about this decision, he filed a review petition in the Court of Rehabilitation Commissioner, who accepted the review petition and maintained the allotment of predecessor-in- interest of respondents to the extent of 5 kanals, 10 marlas, while remaining 31 kanals, 10 marlas, was restored in the name of late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed through a decision dated 4-3-1984. The predecessor -in-interest of respondents, late Muhammad Sharif, filed a revision petition in the Court of Custodian against the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 4-3-1984. The said court dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 14-11-1984. On 24-7-1986 the Custodian granted proprietary rights of land measuring 29 kanals, 12 marlas, comprising Survey No,190-min, to predecesspr-in-intereset of Tahir Mehmood and others, late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed. Despite the grant of proprietary rights to late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, subsequently the Custodian also granted proprietary rights of the same land to predecessor-in-interest of respondents late Muhammad Sharif, on 24-6-1987. Late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed filed a review petition in the court of Custodian on 29-9-1988 against the proprietary rights granted to late Muhammad Sharif. During the pendency of the review petition the record was burnt. In this period Sh. Mehmood Ahmed and Muhammad Sharif died and their legal heirs were impleaded as parties. On 11-8-1990 the respondents also filed a review petition against the proprietary rights granted to late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed on 24-7-1986.
3. The learned custodian vide his judgment dated 18-11-1997 held that the proprietary rights were rightly granted to late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of appellants. He also held that keeping in view the principle of res judicata the respondents have no right to challenge the proprietary rights granted to the appellants. At the same time it was also held by the Custodian that late Sh. Muhammad Ahmed being a government servant was only entitled to allotment of land to the extent of 40 kanals while he has obtained various other allotments. Keeping in view those allotments, he was only entitled to allotment of land to the extent of 5 kanals, 10 marlas. The Custodian while invoking suo motu powers of Multiple Judge cancelled the allotment of land measuring 24 kanals, 10 marlas and the proprietary rights were maintained to the extent of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas, comprising Survey No,190. It was ordered by the Custodian that the land cancelled from the name of late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed may be taken into possession by the Manager Custodian Rawalakot. This order was challenged through two separate writ petitions before the High Court; one by Tahir' Mehmood and others while the other by Khalid Sharif and others. The learned Judge of the High Court vide consolidated judgment dated 6-3-2002 dismissed both the writ petitions. The instant appeals, with the leave to the Court, have been filed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
4. Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the appellants Tahir Mehmood and others, argued that the learned Custodian has rightly held that the respondents were not allottee of the entire land. They were declared allottee of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas. This order of the Custodian has attained finality, therefore, they were not at all entitled to proprietary rights of 29 kanals of land. They were only entitled to 5 kanals, 10 marlas of land. The Custodian has rightly held that they have no locus standi to claim the allotment of land more than 5 kanals, 10 marlas and has rightly dismissed the 'review petition filed by the respondents.
5. It was, further submitted by the learned counsel that the Custodian has wrongly cancelled the allotment of appellants, while invoking the suo motu powers of Multiple Judge. He submitted that after the grant of proprietary rights, the Custodian wis not at all competent to exercise the powers of Multiple Judge and has wrongly cancelled the allotment of appellants. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that on the one hand the Custodian has maintained the proprietary rights of the appellants, while on the other hand he has also cancelled the allotment of the appellants. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Judge of the High Court has failed to consider that when the proprietary rights granted to the appellants were maintained by the Custodian, then in this way he found the appellants entitled to the allotment of land measuring 29 kanals, 12 marlas. After this, the Custodian was not competent to cancel the same on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to this allotment. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the Custodian has wrongly held that being a Government servant, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was only entitled to allotment of land measuring 40 kanals. He submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants never obtained allotment of land being a Government servant but he obtained allotment being a refugee, therefore, he was entitled to the allotment of land to the extent, of 64 kanals. 'The Custodian has wrongly and without any jurisdiction cancelled the allotment of appellants, while invoking the powers of Multiple Judge. After the grant of proprietary rights by the Custodian, he was not competent to exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under section 18-B of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.
6. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Asghar Ali Malik, the learned counsel for the respondents Khalid Sharif and others, contended that the Custodian has wrongly dismissed the review petition filed by the respondents against the grant of proprietary rights in favour of late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed. The learned counsel submitted that the proprietary rights of land measuring 29 kanals, 12 marlas were granted to predecessor-in-interest of respondents (late Muhammad Sharif Khan). The Custodian has wrongly held that the respondents were not entitled to the allotment to this extent and they were only entitled to the allotment of 5 kanals, 10 marlas. The observation of the Custodian is without any substance and he has wrongly dismissed their review petition. The learned Judge of the High Court has wrongly maintained the finding of the Custodian. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents are retaining the possession. Of land. The Custodian has wrongly ordered that the Manager of the Custodian should take over the control of the property. The respondents being refugees were also entitled to the allotment of land.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our utmost muse to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The perusal of the judgment of the Custodian shows that after the scrutiny of the file, he arrived at the conclusion that on 14-11-1984, the Custodian of the time rightly maintained the decision of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and cancelled the allotment of predecessor-in-interest of respondents except 5 kanals, 10 marlas of land. This order was not challenged before any forum, therefore, it has attained finality, thus it stood finally resolved that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents was an allottee of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas. When the predecessor-in-interest of respondents was declared allottee of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas, then how the respondents were entitled to the proprietary rights of land more than 5 kanals, 10 marlas. The Custodian has therefore rightly dismissed the review petition filed by the respondents. The learned Judge of the High Court has also rightly held that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents was an allottee of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas, therefore he was entitled to the proprietary rights of land measuring 5 kanals, 10- marlas. The Custodian on the one hand has maintained the proprietary rights of the appellants and dismissed the review petition of the respondents and on the other hand, cancelled the allotment of land from the name of appellants while invoking the powers of Multiple Judge under section 18-B of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.
8. Now the first question requiring determination is, when once the proprietary rights have been granted to an allottee, then after that the custodian can cancel the basic allotment, while invoking the powers of Multiple Judge under section 18-B(1)(e) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act?
9. No doubt section 18-B(1)(e) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act confers the powers of Multiple Judge upon the Custodian, but these powers were given to him for a particular time. Under this provision of law the Custodian can exercise the powers of Multiple Judge during the process of grant of proprietary rights. This provision clearly contains that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge in cases processed or being processed for grant of proprietary rights. It clarifies the position that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge during the course of grant of proprietary rights. Before granting the proprietary rights; he has to ensure that no one is holding allotment beyond the scale and if it is found that someone is holding the allotment beyond the scale, then he can cancel the allotment while exercising the powers of Multiple Judge.
The powers of Multiple Judge have been given to the Custodian only for meeting such eventuality.
For having proper perception we would like to reproduce section 18-B(1)(e) which reads as under:- "(e) where an allotment is in excess of the prescribed scale and it is necessary to bring the allotment within scale in order to confer proprietary rights in accordance with law, upon such allottee, the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under the Multiple Allotment Act, 1961, in cases processed or being processed for the grant of proprietary rights.
The aforesaid provision clearly conveys that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under the Multiple' Allotment Act, 1961, in order to confer the proprietary rights. In the aforesaid provision the words "in order to confer proprietary rights" clearly convey that the powers of Multiple Judge were only given for conferring the proprietary rights. He can exercise these powers while conferring the proprietary rights. This provision is very much clear. It empowers the Custodian to exercise the powers of Multiple Judge during the course of grant of proprietary rights, which means that these powers were given to him for this particular situation. It is also pertinent to note that this provision further contains that "The Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under the Multiple Allotment Act, 1961, in cases processed or being processed for the grant of proprietary rights". Thus it clarifies that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge in those cases which have been processed or are being processed for grant of proprietary rights. The whole of the provision clearly conveys that the powers of Multiple Judge were given to the Custodian during the completion of process of grant of proprietary rights. He can only look into the validity of allotment while granting proprietary rights. In this case the interpretation of section 18- B(1)(e) is required. The interpretation of statutes remained a subject of debate among the Lawyers, Jurists and Judges down the ages. The mode or method of interpretation of statutes has not generally been regulated by the Assembly or law-makers. It has to be evolved by the Judges and it varies from time to time. According to M. Mehmood in his book "Canon of Construction and Interpretation of Statutes" the Jurists have termed such modes or methods as "rules of statutory interpretation". These rules are as under:---
(i) The Literal Rule.
(ii) The Mischief Rule.
(iii) The Golden Rule.
(iv) The United Contextual Approach.
10. Under the Literal Rule, the statute is to be read literally by giving the words used ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. However if such a reading leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning, the Court may adapt the same. If no such alternate construction is possible, the Court must adapt ordinary rule of literal interpretation. Under the Literal Rule, the words of a statute are sufficient to determine every question that arises under it, no matter how absurd and unjust are the consequences. Interpretation of a provision of law should be harmonious and it should not lead to contradictory or ridiculous consequences. Various provisions of Act have to be read together and not in isolation thereof. A provision of law has to be interpreted in a manner more conducive to the interest of justice and practically possible. This view finds support from a case reported as Asim Qureshi v. Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari and another PLD 1999 Lah.76.
11. The Mischief Rule is a rule to guide the Judges when they find difficulty in Literal Interpretation.
Under this Rule, the Judge is allowed to consider the historical background of the statute. This Rule allows the Judge to look into the common law before the Act and the mischief in the common law.
Where the statute is for the remedy, the same is to be construed in such a manner to suppress the mischief and provide the remedy. The Judges must suppress the mischief and provide remedy to suppress/stop the novel innovations and inventions for evasion and continuance of the mischief.
The Mischief Rule is designed to let the Court to consider why the Act was passed and then to apply that knowledge giving the words under consideration whatever the meaning will be best according to the social purpose of legislation. The rule intends that the Court must advance legislative object and suppress the mischief sought to be cured.
12. Now we come to the Golden Rules. The rule that a statute may be interpreted without following the literal interpretation so as to avoid absurdity is called Golden Rule. The literal legacy is conclusive evidence of the intention of legislature and the intention can be gathered from the words used in the statute. Therefore, a statute must normally be interpreted on the basis of its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. According to this Rule, the Court is supposed to follow the literal approach unless it produces absurdity in which case only, the Court should give some other interpretation.
13. Under the Rule of United Contextual Approach, the Court has the right to examine every word of statute in its context and to use the same in its widest sense by not only including other enacting provisions of the, same statute but its Preamble, the existing state of the law, other statutes in pari materia and the mischief. The Court can by those and other legitimate means discern the statute intended to remedy. No one can profess to understand any part of the statute or of any other document before he has read whole of it. Until one has done so, he is not entitled to say that it or any part of it is clear and unambiguous. All the statutes and enactments are to be given such interpretation as to make them operative and not to bypass them by advancing mere technical objections. This view finds support from a case reported as Syed. Muddasar Shah v. Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others 1999 M LD 736. Natural and ordinary meaning must be ascribed to the words.
14. The basic and fundamental rule of interpretation of statute is that the Court should ascertain the intention and the purpose of the Legislature because it is the essence of the statute. The legislative purpose is the reason why a particular enactment was passed by the Legislature. As such has been provided by Crawford in his book "Statutory Construction, Interpretation of Laws" at pages 247 and 248 in the following words:- "Naturally, the legislative purpose is the reason why the particular enactment was passed by the legislature. Perhaps the reason was to remedy some existing evil or to correct some defect in existing law, or to create a new right or a new remedy. Consequently, in seeking to ascertain the legislative purpose, the Court will resort, among other things, to the circumstances existing at the time of the law's enactment, to the necessity for the law and the evil intended to be cured by it, to the intended remedy, to the law prior to the new enactment and to the consequences of the construction urged."
15. In the light of aforesaid principle, the Court while construing a statute has to ascertain the reasons for its enactment that why it was enacted. Another principle of interpretation of statute is that the Court should give the simple meaning to the words used in the legislation. The Court can gather the intention of the Legislature from the simple meaning of words used in the legislation.
Now the question emerges that what was the purpose of enactment of section 18-B(1)(e) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. While interpreting this section, we have to look into its background, history and the corresponding provisions of the said Act which are sections 18-A and 18-B. We would like to reproduce these provisions of law which read as under:-- ' Section 18-A
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of the next following subsections, the allottee holding allotment of evacuee property in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall enjoy the proprietary rights in respect of such property, however, that such allottee and every other person to whom any such property is transferred by the allottee whether by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise, shall hold the property subject to the condition that, if the owner of such property shall return to Azad Jammu and Kashmir at the time when a plebiscite is about to be, or is being, held in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the UNCIP resolution of the fifth day of January, 1949, and shall surrender the property in favour of the person who is declared to be the rightful owner by the Custodian paying to the allottee or transferee, the cost of any improvement made in the property: ' Provided that the case where the evacuee property is held by any old tenant as defined in.
Government Order No,25/60, then, notwithstanding the grant of proprietary rights to the allottees in respect of such evacuee property, the old tenant shall have the protection against the ejectment to the extent indicated in para.1(e) of the Government Order No,25/60 and he shall be liable to pay the rent to the allottee as provided therein.
(2) The proprietary rights in pursuance of subsection (1) shall be granted by the Custodian to an allottee after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the claim and realizing from such allottee the cost and other dues prescribed by the rules, in the form of Proprietary Rights Transfer Order on the certificate of entitlement from the Rehabilitation Commissioner: ' Provided that such proprietary rights shall be granted to a refugee allottee without any cost: ' Provided further that in case a refugee allottee after obtaining proprietary rights transfers such property, the transferee thereof shall pay to the Custodian the prescribed cost of property.
(3) The Rehabilitation Commissioner shall issue a Certificate of entitlement under subsection (2) after satisfying himself to the effect:
(a) that the allottee is entitled to the allotment of evacuee property in Azad Kashmir;'
(b) that the allotment has been made by the competent authority;
(c) that the allotment is within scale prescribed by the Government from time to time: ' Provided that the land in respect of which an allottee has received compensation from the Government shall also be included for the purposes of entitlement to the maximum limit of entitlement; and
(d) that the allottee has filed a form of holding of evacuee property prescribed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
(4) The order of Rehabilitation Commissioner refusing to issue a certificate of entitlement shall be appealable to the Custodian and in case of acceptance of an appeal his order shall be deemed as entitlement certificate and proprietary rights certificate shall be granted thereon.
(5) The period of limitation for appeal under subsection (4) shall be 90 days from the date of order.
' Section 18-B
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained contrary in any other law, for the time being in force, and without prejudice to the generality of the powers which already vest in him, the Custodian my cancel any allotment of evacuee property in the following cases:
(a) where an allottee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment within the meaning of section 18 of the Act;
(b) where an allottee has, to the satisfaction of the Custodian, voluntarily surrendered or abandoned the allotment;
(c) where the allotment has been made in violation of law or is without jurisdiction;
(d) where the evacuee property stands allotted to more than one person and it is necessary to determine the entitlement to allotment;
(e) where an allotment is in excess of the prescribed scale and it 'is necessary to bring the allotment within scale in order to confer proprietary rights in accordance with law, upon such allottee. The Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under the Multiple Allotment Act, 1961, in cases processed or being processed for the grant of proprietary rights.
(2) The Custodian may eject summarily with the use of such force, as may be necessary, any person found in unauthorized possession of evacuee property or a person who is found by the Custodian to be an unsuitable person to hold such evacuee property or a person who in the opinion of the Custodian subsequently becomes unsuitable to hold such property.
(3) The orders passed by the Commissioner under subsection (3) and by Custodian under subsection (4) of section 18-A and subsection (1) of this section shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court or authority."
16. While interpreting section 18-B(1)(e) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, we have to revert towards the literal rules, mischief rule, golden rule and United Contextual Approach, as stated in the earlier part of this judgment.
17. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the Under the Literal Rule, the statute is to be read literally and the ordinary, natural and grammatical meanings should be given to the words used in the statute. If the ordinary, natural and grammatical meanings are given to the words, then it can safely be said that section 18-B(1)(e) was enacted only for conferring the powers of Multiple Judge to the Custodian during the process of grant of proprietary rights because it has been clearly provided in this provision of law that "the Custodian while conferring the proprietary rights to a person can bring the allotment within the prescribed scale if it is beyond it" and he shall exercise the powers in cases processed or being processed for grant of proprietary rights. It clearly conveys that these powers were made available to the Custodian at the time of grant of proprietary rights and these powers were conferred upon him for a particular eventuality. The words used in the statute are very much clear and if ordinary, natural and grammatical meanings are given to the words, then these clearly reveal that the powers of Multiple Judge were given to the Custodian only for the time when he has to grant the proprietary rights. No doubt the Literal Rule contains that where the reading of the words leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of other meaning, the Court may adopt the same if no alternate construction is possible but in the instant case, the reading of words contained in section 18-B(1)(e) does not lead to any other susceptible meaning. It is very much clear that these powers are given only for the time when he has to consider the cases for grant of proprietary rights.
18. As far the Golden Rule is concerned, it also conveys that a statute must normally be interpreted on the basis of its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. Therefore if the golden rule is adopted even then the conclusion is the same that the words in section 18-B(1)(e) clearly convey that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge when a file is processed or is being processed for grant of proprietary rights which means that the Custodian can look into the validity of the allotment under the Multiple Allotment Act at the time of considering the grant of proprietary rights.
19. As far the Mischief Rule is concerned, it shall not apply to the instant case because the wording of section 18-B(1)(e) is very clear, as stated above. This rule shall only apply if the wording of a statute is not clear. In such an eventuality the Judge is allowed to consider the historical background of the statute. It allows the Judge to look into the common law and the mischief in the common law and to provide remedy while suppressing the mischief. By giving the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning, we have arrived at the conclusion that the powers of Multiple Judge were given to the Custodian for a particular time which means that these powers were available to him only during the process of grant of proprietary rights.
20. We have also looked it from another point of view that the interpretation of law should be harmonious and it should not lead to contradictory or ridiculous consequences. Various provisions of Act are to be read together and not in isolation thereof. Now we have to go through the provisions of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sections 18-A and 18-B were not included in the original Administration of Evacuee Property Act. After section 18, section 19 was mentioned in the original Act. Sections 18-A and 18-B were introduced subsequently on 14-1-1987. These provisions were introduced when it was decided by the Legislature to provide measures for permanent social and economic rehabilitation of the allottees of evacuee property by granting them proprietary rights. It is quite clear that these provisions were introduced only for the purpose of conferring the proprietary rights to the allottees of the land. Therefore these provisions.Deal with the grant of proprietary rights. These provisions provide procedure for grant of proprietary rights and also confer certain powers on the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Custodian regarding grant of proprietary rights. As sections 18-A and 18-B have already been reproduced, therefore, the same need not be reproduced again, however, we would like to reproduce the Preamble of the Act, whereby these provisions were added. The basic spirit and object for addition of these provisions was to provide the proprietary rights to the allottees. In this respect the Preamble of the Act is very much clear which is as under:-- "No,119-123/LD/Leg.(A)/87. The following Act of the Assembly received the assent of the President on the 8th day of January, 1987, is hereby published for general information:-- ' ACT III OF 1987 ' An Act to amend the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957.
' Whereas it is expedient to provide the measures for the permanent social and economic Rehabilitation of allottees of evacuee property by granting them proprietary rights in such allotted evacuee property.
' And whereas it is necessary to amend the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, as in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, for aforesaid purposes; it is hereby enacted as follows:-- 1.
2.
5. Addition of sections 18-A and 18-B, Act XII of 1957. In the said Act, after section 18, the following new sections shall be added namely:-- 18-A ...............
18-B ...............
The aforesaid Preamble of the Act, whereby sections 18-A and 18-B were added clearly conveys that this Act was enacted only for the purpose of granting the proprietary rights to the allottees of the property. Section 18-A clearly lays down that the allottee holding allotment of evacuee property in AJ&K shall enjoy proprietary rights in respect of such property. Subsection (2) of section 18-A contains that the proprietary rights in pursuance of subsection (1) shall be granted by the Custodian to an allottee after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the claim and realizing from such allottee the cost and other dues prescribed by the rules. Subsection (3) contains that the Rehabilitation Commissioner shall issue entitlement certificate under subsection (2).
21. Section 18-B contains certain cases in which the Custodian can cancel the allotment of evacuee property. This 'provision has already been reproduced at page 21 of this judgment.
22. The plain reading of Preamble of the Act, whereby sections 18-A and 18-B were introduced and these provisions clearly reveal that certain powers were given to Custodian and Rehabilitation Commissioner under these provisions. These powers were given only for completion of process of grant of proprietary rights. When once this process is completed, then the Custodian is not authorized to exercise the powers given to him under these provisions. Section 18-B(1)(e) clearly contains that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge under the Multiple Allotment 'Act in cases processed or being processed for the grant of proprietary rights. In this way, clause (e) contains a stipulation that the Custodian shall exercise the powers of Multiple Judge at the time of processing the cases for grant of proprietary rights. Thus it is quite clear that the powers of Multiple Judge were conferred upon the Custodian only for considering the cases regarding the grant of proprietary rights. Once the proprietary rights have been granted by the Custodian, then' after that he has no power to cancel the allotment under section 18-B(1)(e). In the instant case the proprietary rights were 'granted to late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of appellants, on 24-7-1986. After the period of 11 years, the Custodian had invoked the suo motu powers and cancelled the basic allotment of the appellants while exercising the powers of Multiple Judge. He was not at all empowered and competent to cancel the basic allotment of the appellants after the grant of proprietary rights to them. If such jurisdiction is conferred upon the Custodian, then there will be no end of litigation and the poor litigants and their generations will be driven from pillar to post and they will be pushed into such a quagmire which will engender debacle of faith and confidence of people on the system. In such-like situation, the lachrymose maledictions of the poor litigants and their generations would ruin us. The learned Custodian had wrongly and without any jurisdiction cancelled the basic allotment and the learned Judge of the High Court has also failed to consider this important aspect of the case.
23. When it has been resolved by the Custodian that the predecessor-in-interest of 'respondents was only entitled to allotment of land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas, then he was not competent at all to grant proprietary rights of the land more than 5 kanals, 10 marlas to predecessor-in-interest of respondents because under section 18-A only an allottee 'is entitled to the proprietary rights. It would also not be out of place to mention here that the proprietary rights Were granted to predecessor-in-interest of appellants, Tahir Mehmood and others on 24-7-1986 while proprietary rights of the same land were granted to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents on 26-6-1987.
In presence of proprietary rights of appellants, the respondents were not entitled to proprietary rights of the same land. Thus, the custodian was not competent to grant proprietary rights to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents. Assuming for the sake of arguments that if the Custodian would have the powers of Multiple Judge after the grant of proprietary rights, even then there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it could be said that late Sh. Mehrnood Ahmed obtained allotment being a Government servant, therefore, he was only entitled to allotment of land measuring 40 kanals. We have gone through the allotment of Sh.Mehmood Ahmed. The land was allotted in 1958 and the allotment order nowhere contains that at that time he was a Government servant or he obtained allotment being a Government servant. Therefore this finding of the learned Custodian that late Sh. Mehmood Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of appellants, obtained allotment of land being a Government servant is without any substance.
24. It is also to be noted that the perusal of entire file does not show that in which capacity the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, late Muhammad Sharif, obtained allotment of the evacuee property neither he is a refugee nor a local destitute. Even his allotment order did not contain that in which capacity the evacuee property was allotted to him.
25. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by Tahir Mehmood and others is accepted. The order of the Custodian regarding cancellation of proprietary rights of late Sh.
Mehmood Ahmed is hereby set aside. The proprietary rights granted to late Sh. Mehmood regarding land measuring 31 kanals, 10 marlas stand restored. The appeal filed by Khalid Sharif and others is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.