' As common questions of law are involved, I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos, 3807/78, 3348/77 and 3349/77, by a single judgment.
2. Defunct Lahore Improvement Trust in or about April 1965, framed a scheme known as "Kashmir Egerton Road Scheme" and was published under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, on 2-6-1965. Government accorded sanction under section 41 of the Act vide Notification No, S. O. V. (LG) T-7-91/64 dated 26th July, 1968. It covered an area measuring 140 kanals 18 marlas and 142 Sq. Ft. In Village Qila Gujjar Singh and 450 kanals 4 marlas 178 Sq. Ft. In Village Mozang.
Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore issued directive to take over for the acquisition of the land involved, on 30th September, 1969. Land Acquisition Collector gave a number of awards and it is admitted before me that as regards certain Khasra numbers the award is yet to be announced.
3. Lahore Improvement Trust on 14-4-1971 passed Resolution allowing certain exemptions to the owners. The resolution is worded thus :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The Government of Punjab then vide letter No, S.
0. V. 7/91/62 dated 29-6-1971 granted the necessary sanction couched in the following words :- "Government agrees to the proposal to adopt exemption on the basis of two-third of the holding and remaining one-third to be acquired by the Trust."
' Learned counsel appearing for the Lahore Development Authority did not controvert the proposition that every owner is entitled to exemption in terms of the decision referred to therein.
4. Petitioners in Writ Petition No, 3807/78 purchased three kanals of land out of Khasra No, 1027/3 from one Mujtaba Hassan vide a registered sale-deed dated 6-12-1975. The documents of sale were registered before the Sub-Registrar on 10-12-1975. Mujtaba Hassan, their predecessor, inter alia, was confirmed this land comprised in Khasra No, 1027/3 in lieu of his urban claim at Khata No, 61 R. L. II in village Mozang by order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)
Lahore/Chairman Allotment Committee dated 26-2-1968. This allotment was later cancelled by a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 vide order dated 14-3-1968. Mujtaba Hassan, his brother Mustafa Hassan and Mst. Itrun Nissa, their mother (allottees of the land) filed a constitutional petition (W. P. No, 982/ R- 69) in this Court calling in question the order of the delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14-3-1968. A learned Judge of this Court (Zakiuddin Pal, J.) vide judgment dated 2-2-1972 accepted this petition and quashed the order dated 14-3-1968.
5. Allottees, before the sale in favour of the petitioners, had applied for the exemption of the plot in their favour in time. The Town Planner, am informed, had taken the view that the allottees were entitled to the permissible exemptions but final order was deferred to a date when unauthorised encroaches were cleared. Petitioners then in continuation of that application having stepped into the shoes of the allottees, moved application pointing out that exemption proceedings be finalised in the names of the. Petitioners. The Land Acquisition Collector had also, in the meantime, announced supplementary award on 26-6-1974 entitling the petitioners to receive compensation for the land acquired. The request of the petitioners for the exemption has been turned down by order of the Lahore Development Authority as conveyed to the petitioners by the Deputy Director (Exemptions) vide letter No, KE-36/13795 dated 3-5-1978 (Annex. 'H'). The operative part of the letter reads thus :- "It is regretted to inform you that the L. D. A. Cannot entertain your claim for exemption of land cited as subject as the land in question has been allotted to you on RL-H in the Urban Area which was not permissible under the rules."
' This order of the respondent-authority is called in question in this constitutional petition.
6. Petitioner in Writ Petition No, 3348/77 is the allottee herself. She was confirmed 3 kanals 4 marks of land comprised in Khasra No, 1027/5 at Khata No, 63 R. L. II in village Mozang in lieu of her urban claim vide order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chairman, Allotment Committee, dated 26-2-1968. Her case is that by virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, her land had become vested on her and she became full owner of the same. She also applied for the exemption of the plot in her favour on 2-3.1972. The award in her case is however, pending announcement. Her application for similar reasons has been rejected vide letter dated 27-10-1977 which is called in question in this constitutional petition.
7. Facts in Writ Petition No, 3349/77 are somewhat identical as in Writ Petition No, 3348/77. Petitioner in this case was confirmed land measuring 4 kanals comprised in Khasra No, 5176 at Khata No, 29 RL. II in Village Qila Gujjar Singh, vide order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chairman Allotment Committee dated 1-5-1967. In his case also the final award is not yet announced.
Petitioner, similarly, applied for exemption. In this case also application for exemption has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27-10-1977 for similar reasons.
8. Since the proposition that an owner whose land has been acquired for the scheme is entitled to the permissible exemption, the only question that calls for determination in these cases is if an allottee of urban agricultural land in lieu of the land claim, is or is not an owner as contemplated by the exemption scheme. Decisions of the authority in all these cases proceed on the sole ground that as the land in lieu of which the exemption was sought, had "been allotted on R. L. IT in the urban areas which was not permissible under the rules", the exemption could not be allowed. As the award, at least, in one of these cases, i,e, in Writ Petition No, 3807/78, had been announced, the right to receive cash compensation is not denied. The award not having been challenged by the Authority. I am entitled to take this view. In the other two cases the awards, statedly, have not yet been announced and therefore, it is not yet clear if the Authority would contest even the payment of cash compensation to them. Be that as it may, the point before me, as already noticed, is, as to whether a claimant to whom the land in lieu of his urban claim had been confirmed, can or cannot be treated as owner for all intents and purposes.
9. Land as defined in subsection (3) to section 2, means evacuee property consisting of land held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture including gardens, un-serveyed land and trees or buildings and other structures standing thereon and includes all rights of evacuee in such land, but does not include :- "(a) Property as defined in sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of section 2 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956) : or in sub-clause (d) thereof ; or
(h) Such evacuee land as may be declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a building site."
10. Para 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme which applies mutatis mutandis to Supplementary Scheme No, II governs allotment of urban agricultural land. This inter alia, provides that classification of evacuee land shall be taken into account according to the entries in the special Jamabandi prepared for exchange with India and subsequent variation in the classification of soil, should be ignored.
' Reading of all these provisions together, evidently, shows that for the purposes of allotment of evacuee land the classification of the soil to be taken into consideration is the one which is entered in the special jamabandi of 1946-47 prepared for exchange with India. Therefore, if any property was used as agricultural land in 1946, the same shall be treated "land" as defined in subsection (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, referred to here before. The disputed land having been shown as 'Nth? In the special jamabandi, learned counsel for the Authority found it difficult to contend that the same could not be allotted as land in satisfaction of land claims. Besides Writ Petition No, 3807/78 the allotment of the disputed land as agricultural land had even been expressly upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 2-2-1972 in Writ Petition No, 982/R/59. He however, argued that the disputed land having been declared as building site by notification of the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued under clause (b), subsection (3) of section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 the same was not available or allotment as agricultural land. On this assumption he addressed lengthy arguments to contend that the basic order being void, the respondent-authority was within its right to ignore the same. I gave him a number of adjournments to produce the said notification but no such notification was produced before me. At the request of the learned counsel for the Authority I kept the judgment reserved for some days so as to enable him to produce the notification, if any, but none has been produced. I therefore, need not notice the case-law cited as the factual assumption is without basis. I am therefore, inclined to hold that the allotments of the disputed land as agricultural land are valid in law and the authorities were obliged to honour the same. For similar reasons I am not called upon to go into the question if the authority could, at all, go into the validity or otherwise of the allotment competently made by the officials functioning under a Statute.
11. This brings me to the question if the petitioners on the basis of these allotments could be treated as owners as envisaged in the exemption scheme. Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is complete answer to this. This embodies, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the land on which a displaced person is permanently settled under this Act, shall vest absolutely in such person." The settlement of the land on an allottee automatically takes effect under section 15 of the Act if the allotment is not subject- matter of an appeal, revision or review before the Rehabilitation authorities ; or the land is allotted in lieu of rights as a mortgager or mortgagee and the allottee has not fulfilled the prescribed terms and conditions, or if the land has been allotted provisionally on the basis of inconclusive data. The allotments, in hand, do not suffer from any such disqualification. The persons, therefore, in whose favour allotment had been confirmed are owners for all intents and purposes. The alienee under such an allottee, as in case of Writ Petition No, 3807/78, similarly, gets full rights in the property.
12. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions succeed and the orders impugned are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The cases are remitted to the Lahore Development Authority to dispose of the exemption cases again, in accordance with law.
13. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.