' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby, Mohabbat Ali and 134 other petitioners want this Court ' to declare Kothis Nos. 119-P and 120-P, Burewala (hereinafter referred to as locality) as a katchi abadi under Trasfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and direct the Chief Settlement Commissioner- respondent No, 1 to treat the locality as `katchi abadi'. Furthermore, to declare the P. T. D. Issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan-respondent No, 2 with regards to the locality to be illegal and without lawful authority.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that two evacuee Kothies Nos 119-P and 120-P measuring 16 Kanals 2 Marlas are situated in city Burewala. District Vehari, the same were put to auction on 26th August, 1960 and were sold to Fazal Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 23 to 28 for Rs, 30,500 and to Jamal Din predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos 4 to 8 for Rs, 31,500 respectively. The P. T. Ds. Were issued on 7th January, 1971 and 22nd December, 1973.
Respondents Nos. 9 to 22 have purchased the locality from the P. T. D. Holders for value. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are residing in the locality since 1947 and there were more than fifty houses in the locality when the Act was promulgated and as such respondent No, 2 should have sent recommendation to the Chief Settlement Commissioner-respondent No, 1 for declaring the locality as a `katchi abadi' within the meaning of the Act and thereafter, the locality should have been transferred to the petitioners in accordance with the Scheme prepared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner for carrying out the purnoses of the Act. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner-respondent No, 2 instead of sending recommendation to respondent No, I for declaring the locality as 'katchi !Abadi' who vide his intimation (Annex : `H') dated 25th May, 1982 informed the petitioners that since according to the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner no katchi abadi was existing in Block P. Burewala on 15th March, 1972, it was not possible to declare the locality as a katchi abadi. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended :-
(1) That the petitioners having occupied the evacuee kothis Nos. 119-P and 120-P (i,e, the locality) since 1947 and there being more than fifty houses constructed thereon on 15th March, 1972, the locality was fit to be declared as katchi abadi.
(ii) That the report submitted by Deputy Settlement Commissioner to respondent No, 1 that 'katchi abadi' did not exist on 15th March, 1972 in `P' Block, Burewala was factually false and collusive.
(iii) That in spite of issuance of P. T. D. In favour of the auction-purchasers, the locality was still evacuee under the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi Amendment) Act, 1977 and as such could be declared and notified as 'katchi abadi' and it was, thus, available for transfer to the petitioners/occupants.
' As against this, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 28 had vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the locality having been transferred to the auction-purchasers in the year 1960, I was no more evacuee property in the year 1972 when the Act was promulgated and as such the locality being out of the scope of the Act cannot be declared as `katchi abadi'. Furthemore, the locality being building site, cannot be declared as `katchi abadi' and that the petitioners have illegally occupied the locality after the auction and suits for their dispossession from the locality filed by the respondents have been decreed against the petitioners by the Civil Judge.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. For the proper appreciation of the matter it would be convenient to reproduce the relevant provisions of law and of Scheme prepared to carry out the purpose of the Ordinance.
TRANSFER OF EVACUEE LAND (KATCHI ABADI)
ORDINANCE, 1972 ' Section 2(b) : "appointed day" means the fifteenth day of March, 1972.
' Section 2(f) : "katchi abadi" means such inhabited area of evacuee land as is declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be a Katchi Abadi for the purposes of this Ordinance.
' Section 7 : Preparation of Scheme. -The Chief Settlement Commissioner may, with the approval of the Government, prepare a scheme for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance.
DISPLACED PERSONS (LAND SETTLEMENT) ACT, 1958 ' Section 2(3)(b) : such evacuee land as may be declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a building site. SCHEME UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ORDINANCE Section 4(a) : A locality of or above 50 tenements, existing in the form of a ' cluster or a colony on the evacuee land, not declared as building sites under sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, will, on the recommendations of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned, be declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
' Section 5 : The Deputy Settlement Commissioner should study the Ordinance and the Scheme carefully to understand the intention behind them, their overall meanings and scope. Only those localities which exist on the evacuee land, not declared as building sites under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and on which 50 or more tenements have been constructed by their occupants on or before the 15th March, 1972, should be recommended for being declared as Katchi Abadis by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
' Section 8(a) : The Deputy Settlement Commissioner should send his recommendations for declaring any locality, alongwith detailed reasons, as Katchi Abadi by or before the 10th June, 1972 without fail. Reasons for not recommending any locality existing on evacuee land for declaring as Katchi Abadi should . Be specifically given. The report should contain, inter alia, the following information :-
(i) Name of locality.
(ii) Total area of the locality to be declared as Katchi Abadi.
(iii) Full particulars of khasra numbers of evacuee land on which the locality exists.
(iv) Total number of tenements constructed on the locality.
' The bare reading of the provisions of law make crystal clear that only those localities which not only exist on the evacuee land but were also not declared as building sites under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and on which fifty or more tenements have been constructed on or before 15th March, 1972 could be recommended by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for declaring the same as Katchi Abadi.
5. After going through the material brought on the record of this petition, I find from para. No, 1 of the petition, para. No, 2 of Annex: 'H', i,e, the report of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, copies of the record of riehts pertaining to the year 1972-73 (Annex : 'C') and (Annex :wherein, in column No, 7, the locality has been described as "Ghairmumkin plot kothi" and from the comments that the locality was, in fact, a building site, it was treated and put on auction as building sites and thereafter it was transferred through P. T. D. As such. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert this aspect of the case. Since the locality according to my assessment was a building site on the relevant date, the same could not be commended by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for being declared as Katchi Abadi under the Scheme prepared under section 7 of the Ordinance for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance. As for contentions 1 and 2, the assertions of the petitioners that they were occupiers of the locality since 1947 and more than 50 houses had been constructed thereon since before 15th March, 1972 and that the report submitted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to respondent No, 1 that katchi abadi did not exist on 15th March, 1972 in the locality was false and collusive, having been refuted by the respondents in Annexure 'H' in comments and reply, the matter requires deeper investigation which I am afraid, may not be done by this Court while sitting in its writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, there is nothing on the record to substantiate that the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was collusive one.
' Since for the reasons given above I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, I need not discuss contention No, (iii), i,e, whether the locality was an evacuee land or not for the purposes of the Ordinance.
6. For what has been stated above there being no force in the petition the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.