' The petitioners seek to challenge the order of respondent No, 1 in Revisions (Appeals) No, 2-5- Reh/1968 and 2-6-Reh/1968 whereby their aforesaid appeals were dismissed and the order of respondent 2 dated 24th January, 1968 passed on their applications was maintained.
' The facts as stated in the memo. Of petition are as under :- ' The petitioners are brothers and claimant displaced persons from non-agreed area whose claims for agricultural lands were verified. Q P R 1534/47 date 30th April, 1959 for 22,915 produce index units, including 11,158 Chahi Units was issued by the Central Record Office Lahore in favour of petitioner No, 1 for settlement at Hyderabad and Q P R No, 1533/47 of the same date for 22,876 produce index units, including 11,182 Chahi Units was issued in favour of petitioner No, 2 also for settlement at Hyderabad under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.
' On the basis of Q P R 1534/47 petitioner No, 1 was allotted total area of 522.244 acres of agricultural land out of which it is alleged by the petitioner that 222.11 acres was Flow land and 300.131 acres was Banjar Qadim. It is the case of the petitioner that all the 522.244 acres were wrongly calculated at 40, P. I. U. Per acre as if the entire area was Flow land, although 300 134 acres Banjar Qadim should have been calculated at 1/8th of the Flow land, that is, at 5, P. I. U. Per acre. The total for both categories of land was 10,395, P. I. U. But was wrongly calculated at 21,125 P. I. U., thus causing petitioner No a loss of 10,730 P. I. U. It is further claimed that he was entitled to 10 per cent extra allowance for 11,158 Chahi Units in pursuance of para. 26 Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, as no share in a well had been given to him and therefore he was entitled to total extra 11,845 P. I. U.
' With respect to petitioner No, 2, since total area of 522.31 acres was allotted to him of which, according to him, 366M5 acres was Flow land and 156.26 acres Banjar Qadim, the correct calculation of Flow land 366.5 acres at 40 P.
1. U. Per acre comes to 14,413 I I. U. And of 156.26 acres at 5 P. I. U. Per acre comes to 784, P. I. U., total being 15,197, P. I. U. As against 22,073 P. I. U. Calculated by the Department resulting in a loss of 6,608, P. I. Us.
' Petitioner No, 2 further claims that he was also entitled to 10 per cent extra allowance for 11,182 Chahi Units as no share in a well was given to him. His total entitlement, therefore, was extra P. I.. Us.
Plus. 1,118 P. I. Us. Which comes to 7,994, P. I. Us.
' On 28th December, 1960 M. L. R. 84 was promulgated and petitioners submitted their entitlement under Q P R for re-verification, as the allotments were to be made on the basis of such re- verification which was to be in the manner prescribed by the aforesaid Regulation. The Regulation was amended by M. L. Rs, Nos. 89 and 91 under which limits were fixed for the entitlement of claimants and the land held in excess had to be surrendered. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was authorised to frame a scheme for disposal of such surrendered land, and such a scheme was promulgated on 29th December, 1961.
' The petitioner received revised entitlement on 26th September, 1961. Petitioner No, 1 received M R V No, 3042/12-005122 for 4,042 P. I. Us. Including 2,223 Chahi Units, and petitioner No, 2 received MRV No, 3041/134-005138 for 4,037, P. I. Us. Including 2,023 Chahi Units.
' After the receipt of revised entitlements under MRV both the petitioners were issued revised Khatonis separately and adjustment of P. I. Us. Mentioned in their MRVs were allowed against allotment held by them under their Q. P. Rs, and the remaining land was allowed to be purchased by them through exercise of option.
' No extra allowance of 10 per cent for Chahi Units was allowed to them, although no Chahi lands had been allowed to them. It is the case of petitioner No, 1 that only 97.5 acres in Deh Dasori Taluka Tando Allahyar consisting of 25.1 acres of Flow land and 72.4 acres of Banjar Qadim was allotted and adjusted against his M R V calulating entire area at 40 P.
1. U. Per acre at the rate of Flow land and Banjar Qadim was completely ignored ; with the result of a total loss of 2,681 P. I. Us. And although the MRV contains 2,023 Chahi Units which gave him equivalent of 222 P. I. Us. Concession was not allowed and, therefore, there was resulting loss of 2,681 P. I. Us.
' On behalf of petitioner No, 2 it is stated similarly that only 97.39 acres in Deh Dasori and Thebki in Taluka Tando Allahyar consisting of 74.06 acres of Flow land and 23.33 Banjar Qadim was allotted and adjusted against MRV calculating entire area at 40 P.
1. U. Acres at the rate of Flow land, thus causing a loss of 952 P. I. Us to him and also additional entitlement for 2,223 Chahi Units which gave him further 222 P. I. Us. Was disallowed, thus causing in all a total loss of 1,174, P. I. Us. It is further alleged that the remaining 424.32 acres out of which 291.39 acres was Flow land and 132.33 acres Banjar Qadim was purchased by him when 1,174 P. I. Us. More at 40 P. I. U. Per acre for Flow land and 5 P.
1. U. Per acre for Banjar Qadim ought to have seen adjusted against the remaining land allotted to him.
' On 5th December, 1967 both the petitioners filed separate applications before respondent 2 raising the objections as indicated above and both the applications were dismissed by order dated 24th January, 1968. The petitioners then preferred two appeals under section 18 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before respondent No, 1 who dismissed the same by his order dated 29th June, 1974 and hence the instant petition was filed.
' The only other contention of the petitioners is about 10 per cent extra allowance for Chahi Units against MRV entitlement. Mr. Abbas Faruqi the learned counsel for respondents has pointed out that clause 26 of Chapter 2 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme does not apply to the case of petitioners who are not from prescribed area. He has pointed out that clause 26 of Part II has reference to claimants from prescribed area which has been defined in part I Chapter 1 clause (vi) of the Scheme. He has further pointed out that paras. 29, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 58 all have reference to prescribed area In any case, even if the Scheme does prescribe for claimants from non-prescribed area, the provisions are different. The reference in para. 8 of the reported decision in Mst. Fidai Zuhra and others v. Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sukkur and others, does mention that the Department has conceded that paragraph 26 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme was still in force and was applicable both to agreed and non- agreed areas. The aforesaid observation, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, can be with regard to the Scheme prescribing for claimants from non-prescribed area, but with regard to them the provisions are different.
' On behalf of the respondents the factual position as given in the petition has not been controverted by filing of any counter-affidavit. Mr. Abbas Faruqui, the learned counsel for the respondents, has however argued that the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 are legal and proper, stressing that the petitioner's contention about categories of land according to soil classification was raised not in the year 1959-60 at the time of allotment, but for the first time in the year 1967 when they had by their own conduct rendered it impossible to determine whether at the time of allotment, and if so, what portion of the land was Banjar Qadim. He has further stressed the fact that the lands allotted had been shown as 'Nehri' and there was no classification of Banjar Jadid, Qadim or Ghair Mumkin in the aforesaid allotment orders. He has further contended that the petitioners being claimants displaced persons from non-agreed areas, the concession with regard to Chahi land which has bearing in para. 26 of Chapter 1, Part It of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme was not allowed to them. In the alternative, he has contended that 10 per cent allowance claimed on behalf of Chahi Units had to be determined by conversion into P.
1. Us. By the Central Record Office, Lahore where the provisions of Para. 26 Part II of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme had to be taken into consideration and no such concession could be allowed at the District level.
' The contention of the petitioners with regard to miscalculation of their entitlement is mainly based on the ground that the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme 1956 had to be read with correction slip No, 2-P-1 dated 15th August, 1957 which was added to the foot note of the above pamphlet in order to clarify the basis on which the claims had to be settled in Sind region, Note 1
(d) reads as under :--- "Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin soil wherever they exist in all the Districts of Hyderabad and Khaipur Divisions should be evaluated at 1/4th, 1/8th and 1/16th of Flow soil of the talukas concerned respectively."
' The position with regard to the aforesaid classification of lands was made clear in Circular No, D. R.
C. 9139 dated 5th September, 1959 issued by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sukkur, a reference to which was made in a decision of this Court in Mst. Fidai Zuhra and others v. Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sukkur (1) which is quoted as under :- "It is observed that most of the Mukhtiarkars and A. R. Cs, Rehabilitation and Assistant Mukhtiarkars do not know the Banjar Qadim with the result that people approach the undersigned for definition.
' The definition of Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim is, therefore, produced as below for information, guidance and compliance of all concerned : -
(1) Banjar Jadid.-Land left fallow for consecutive 4 years is entered as Banjar Jadid, if not cultivated in the 5th year.
(2) Banjar Qadim.-if Banjar Jadid is not brought under cultivation for further 3 years i. e. Upto the end of 7th year is entered as Banjar Qadim in the 8th year, if not cultivated in that year."
' The correction slip No, 2-P-1 dated 15th August, 1957 remained in force upto 19th January, 1962. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the withdrawal of the previous correction slip would have no retrospective effect, and on the date that allotment of land was made in favour of the two petitioners, the correction slip dated 5th August, 1957 continued to be applicable.
' Mr. Akhta'r Mahmood, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon the' decision in Fidai Zuhra and others v. Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands); Sukkur, to support the contention that the correction slip issued in 1962 cannot have retrospective effect ; on the other hand, Mr. Abbas Faruqui, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in the aforesaid decision the petitioners had been given the benefit of correction slip No, 2-P-1 dated 15th August, 1957 and had acquired a vested right and, therefore, it was considered that they could not be deprived of the land in their possession on the basis of a correction slip issued in 1962 with retrospective effect. In the instant case, however, the petitioners were never given benefit under the aforesaid correction slip and even such a question did not arise for the simple reason that the petitioners had acquiesced in the possession and they had been given Nehri lands, and there was no mention of any of lands being classified as Banjar Qadirn. The petitioners, for the first time, agitated the question about classification of soil and category of lands allotted to them in the year 1967 when they filed two applications before respondent No, 2 and by that time since the aforesaid correction slip had been withdrawn with orders that it should be deemed never to. Have existed, the question of the correction slip No, 4-P-1 dated 19th January, 1962 not having retrospective effect, in their case does not arise at all.
' Before considering the effect of correction slip dated 15th August, 1957, it is in any, case necessary to determine whether at all any of the lands allotted
(1) PLD 1966 Kar.
79. ' to the petitioners could have been classified as Banjar Qadim. For this purpose, a reference has to be made to the explanation given about the classification of soil in the Circular No, D.R.C. 9139 dated 5th September, 1959, which has been reproduced above. The entire question is one of facts, as it is to be determined whether the land, when allotted, had been left fallow and not brought under cultivation for 7 years so that it could have been classified as Banjar Qadim in the 8th year, if not cultivated in that year. For obvious reasons, the contention that any particular portion of the land allotted to the two petitioners was Banjar Qadim, the objection should have been raised at the earliest moment enabling the decision about the same by the District Authorities. Although it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the delay in raising the contention was due to the fact that they were not supplied copies of Circulars regarding clarification of Banjar Qadim etc. And that the earliest effort was made in 1959 when they applied to D. R. C. Hyderabad and again on 17th May, 1960 when they applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner but did not get a reply and on 29th July, 1960 they applied to the R. M. Tando Allahyar for list of lands and that on 30th January, 1961 the A. R. M. Replied that there was no record of Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin in his taluka records, and the allotments to the petitioners had been made of Nehri (Canal) lands, the actual fact remains that the point with regard to miscalculation of the produce a index units with regard to their claims was made for the first time on 5th December, 1967 when they made applications to respondent No, 2.
' As there is no indication in the orders of allotment about the classification of the lands except that the same have been shown as Flow lands or (Nehri) canal lands, it is purely a question of fact whether in the lands allotted to them there was any proportion of lands which could have been classified as Banjar Qadim. On this point, there is a finding of respondent No, 2 in the impugned order dated 29th June, 1974 in which it has inter alia been held that the land allotted to the petitioners was 'cultivable flow' land. In the impugned order of respondent No, 1, dated 29th June, 1974 again the fact has been reiterated that the land allotted to the petitioners was 'cultivable flow' and that the concession of Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim had at no stage either been claimed by them or given to them. It was further observed with regard to the claim of Fayyaz Ahmad whose Revision Application was also decided by the same order that his claim regarding evalution of certain areas as lift irrigated could not be looked into at the stage of appeal as the same was a question of fact. The reason given for not agitation the point about classification of the land allotted to the petitioners so far back as 1959-1960 or more than 6-7 years is not plausible in that the Rehabilitation Settelement Scheme along with the correction slips etc. Was readily available, and they could easily have taken proper legal advice in the matter. The concurrent decision of respondent No, 2 and No, 1 about the factual position with regard to the lands allotted to the petitioners, for obvious reasons, cannot be upset at' this stage. The impugned orders of respondents 2 and 1, therefore, appear to be legal and proper and no case has been made out for interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this Court specially in view of laches on the part of the petitioners. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.