' The petitioner is a claimant displaced person. His claim for agricultural land was verified to the extent of 214 Bighas and 18.4 Biswa s. Out of this land 38 Bighas were verified as garden land. The petitioner issued Q.P.R. On 17th December, 1959 for 6922 units and on the basis of this Q.P.R. a "Khatoni" was issued on him on 11th March, I9 for 219.34 acres of agricultural land situated in village Morio Lakho, Tehsil Sakrand, District Nawabshah. The garden land was included in this "Khatoni".
Some change was later made in the "Khatoni" on account of part of the land having been allotted to other persons, with the result that the petitioner was left with 190.7 acres of land excluding garden land. On taking possession, the petitioner found that 64.22 acres of land was lift land and 125.7 acres was "Banjar Jadid". Accordingly, the petitioner made an application to the Mukhtiarkar and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 5tb October, 1980 for recalculation of the area of land to which he was entitled according to correction slip No, 2-P-1, dated 15th August, 1957. Now this correction slip is attached to the produce index unit pamphlet issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is the petitioner's case that according to this correction slip, he should have received "Banjar Jadid" land at four times the acreage to which he was entitled and that in case of lift land 24 produce index units should have been treated as equivalent to one acre, as against 35 units to an acre for flow land. The petitioner's case is that the land included in his allotment was either lift land or "Banjar Jadid" land. But the allotting authorities ignored the correction slip and calculated the area allotted to him on the basis of 35 produce index units equivalent to one acre.
The Mukhtiarkar called for report, which report is dated 8th October, 1960 and which certifies that some of the land given to the petitioner was lift land and the other had not been under cultivation for at least five years. This finding was supported by the "Ghoshwara" for five years. In the meantime, Martial Law Regulation No, 84 was promulgated, and the petitioner then received a new entitlement, M.R.V. For 2442 units including garden land to the extent of 714 units. The petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to purchase the excess land under Martial Law Regulation No, 89.
But this issue is not before me, as the petitioner says that his case is that he would be entitled to purchase excess land if any is found by the competent authorities.
2. The petitioner continued to agitate his contentions before the Settlement Authorities and ultimately the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah, accepted his appeal by order dated 26th August, 1964, and directed that the petitioner's entitlement to agricultural land and garden land should be reopened and recalculated according to classification of the land, by which I take the learned officer to refer to the correction slip of which note has been taken above. But this order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner on 8th February, 1965 on "suo motu" revisional proceedings.
This learned Officer held that according to paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Scheme, the classification of the land should be taken as that prevailing in 1946-47 and that no subsequent changes could be made in that classification. It is this order which is impugned before me.
3. After hearing the petitioner and Mr. Wasim Hamid Rizvi for the Settlement Department, who appeared in response to the order of this Court, I am of the view that the learned Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner has taken an erroneous view of the legal position in this case. The agreed position that no such classification as lift land, "Banjar Jadid", "Banjar Qadim" or "Ghair Mumkin" lands found place in the revenue records of Sind prior to Partition.
It was in view of this position that the correction slip referred to above was brought-so that the anomalies in the allotment of agricultural lands may be rectified. This correction slip reads as follows : "Correction slip No, 1, p. I, dated 2nd March, 1957. Correction slip No, 2, p. 1, dated 15th August, 1957."
"Produce Index pamphlet of the Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions." In supersession of C.S. No, 1, p. I, dated the 26th March, 1957 the following should be added to the footnote to the pamphlet."
"Note.-(1) (a) Chahi soil wherever it exists "in the districts of the Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions should lie treated as flow soil."
(b) Sailabi Katcha soil wherever it exists in all the districts of the Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions should be accorded half the produce value of the flow soil.
(c) Sarani soil wherever it exists in all the. Districts of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions should be accorded one-fourth of produce value of flow soil.
(d) Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin soil wherever they exist in all the districts of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions should be evaluated at one-fourth, one-eighth and one- sixteenth of flow soil of the Taluka concerned respectively."
It will thus be noted that for Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions, the correction slip expressly introduced classification of lands as "Banjar Jadid", Banjar Qadim" and "Ghair Mumkin", etc. This correction slip came on 15th August, 1957. Accordingly, the acreage of land transferred to the petitioner in 1959 in lieu of his claim should have been calculated on the basis of the classification of lands contained in this correction ship, but this was not done. Mr. Wasim Hamid Rizvi contended that this correction slip was withdrawn on 19th January, 1962, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the provisions of this correction slip. I am unable to accept this proposition for the reason that when the land was first allotted to the petitioner, his acreage should have been calculated according to the correction slip. I am. Dealing here with an allotment made in 1959, when the correction slip was in force, and not-with an allotment made after the withdrawal of the correction slip. Therefore, the petitioner's right to obtain allotment in accordance with the correction slip cannot be said to have been taken away with the with drawal of the correction slip in 1962. I am supported in this view by th observations made by a Division Bench at Karachi in Mst.
Fidai Zuhra v. Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sukkur. It may be mentioned here that against this decision, the department went in appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8 and K-9 of 1966 but their Lordships dismissed these appeals by order dated 2nd March, 1967. Therefore, the observations made in the Karachi decision have also been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently. 1 will set aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah and uphold the validity of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 26th August, 1964. In consequence, the entitlement of the petitioner to agricultural land should be determined according to the directions contained in this order.
4. Another contention canvassed before me is with regard to the garden land. The petitioner obtained allotment of 8.38 acres in Naushahro Feroze, District Nawabshah comprising of Survey Nos. 7, 272, 543, 295, 296, 297 and 298, but subsequently 1/4th share in Survey No, 543 was declared to be non-evacuee and was withdrawn from the allotment of the petitioner. On going through the records, Mr. Wasim Hamid Rizvi stated at the bar that this declaration as a non-evacuee character of 1/4th share in Survey No, 543 was wrong and that this survey number is evacuee property. But, according to Mr. Wasim Hamid Rizvi, a difficulty has arisen in that the whole of this survey number has been allotted to respondent No,
4. But the respondent No, 4 is absent, although he has been served with notice of this case. In view of fact that the declaration that 1/4th in Survey No, 543 was not evacuee has been found to be incorrect, I have to hold that this survey number was wrongly withdrawn from the allotment of the petitioner. The respondent No, 4 is not before me to show- cause against this view which I have taken.
5. No other point was canvassed before me. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the following directions :-
(1) That the entitlement to agricultural land of the petitioner shall be re-calculated in accordance with the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Nawabshah, dated 26th August, 1964 and in accordance with the provisions of the-correction slip referred to above.
(2) The withdrawal of Survey No, 543 from the garden land allotted to the petitioner is set aside, and it is held that no part of this survey number was non-evacuee.
PLD 1966 Kar. 79