SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant, a claimant for rural land, to examine whether his entitlement to allotment of urban land already temporarily allotted to him should be governed by the ceiling of 30 kanals or that of 4 kanals fixed under para. 8 of Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. II.
2. The petitioner migrated from village Kot Khera, Tehsil and District Amritsar, a rural area. He settled in Basti Bela Ram, a suburb of Lahore as urban area. He was temporarily allotted 30 kanals and 18 marlas there on 5-4-1949. In 1958 Supplementary Scheme No. II was promulgated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner for settling those having claims for urban areas. Para. 8 of the Scheme authorised the Rehabilitation Commissioner to prescribe scales of allotments in. Any particular area in keeping with local conditions. By a memo. Dated 16-9-1959 dealing with Lahore District alone, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner excluded all agricultural land inside the red line marked on the map of Lahore from allotments but in respect of others it was provided that claimants in whose favour entitlement slips in Form T. U. 3 had been issued in the Lahore Urban Area and who might wish to get lard there should be allotted land not exceeding 30 kanals in terms of unirrigated land. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was directed to make the allotment personally subject to such other instructions as may be issued in that respect. Another instruction issued on 6-1-1960 whereby for the rest of the districts in West Pakistan the maximum scale of allotment was fixed at less than 8 acres. Finally on 10-2-1960 the system of area rationing was resorted to in respect of Lahore District where allotments had to be made in accordance with the first memorandum dated 16-9-1959. The limits in respect of Basti Bela Ram was fixed at 4 kanals Para. 2 of the instructions dated 10-2-1960 is as follows: "He had further decided that the old temporary and quasi-permanent allotments already made should not be disturbed subject to entitlement and the provisions of the Supplementary Scheme No. II should be followed in such cases."
3. It is clear that till 20th February, 1960, no entitlement existed in respect of rural claimants occupying urban land as temporary allottees thereof. On 20th February, 1960, another proviso was added to para. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No. II and it provided as follows:- "Provided further that Central Government may permit any person who is in continuous possession of land or garden in an urban area for not less. Than 5 years to retain an area not exceeding of the value of 2,000 produce index units in that urban area against a verified claim for urban or rural land by suitable adjustments irrespec--tive of the maximum units fixed by the Chief Settlement and Rehabili--tation Commissioner under clause 8 above."
4. The powers so acquired by the Central Government were exercised first in the manner that status quo was ordered to be maintained till a decision was taken in the matter and the temporary allottees were ordered not to be disturbed from their allotments. The final decision of the Central Govern--ment in exercise of this proviso to para. 24 came on 26th June, 1963. It provided that the displaced persons who qualified under the provisions contained in the 2nd proviso to clause 24 of the Central Supplementary Scheme No. II "may be permitted to retain their temporary urban allotments of urban agricultural land against their verified establishment for rural land combined, not exceeding the area held by them in temporary allotment or the maximum scale of allotment fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under para. 8 of the Scheme for the first round of urban allotments whichever is less subject to title."
5. The petitioner's allotment of 30 kanals 18 marlas was disturbed on 22nd of April, 1961, when an area of 12 kanals 2 marlas and 94 square feet out of it was proposed on 24-2-1961 and confirmed on 26-4-1961 in favour of respondents. Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioners .Challenged the allotment on the ground that when they were deprived of that area the stay order of the Central Government was in the field which plea succeeded but their own entitlement being that of .4 kanals as fixed under para. 8 of the Supplementary Scheme by the subsequent decision applicable to Basti Bela Ram.
The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court but was unsuccessful.
6. The two circular letters of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the one which issued on 16-9-1959 and the other which issued on 10-2-1.960 required interpretation and application to the case of the petitioners. When these circulars issued the petitioners were admittedly not entitled to any allotment whatsoever under the Supplementary Scheme No. II being rural claimants holding temporary allotments of urban land. Their entitlement was therefore created by the induction of second proviso to para. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme. The decision of the Central Govern--ment with respect to the extent and manner of protection to claimants like the petitioners came out and is contained in memo. Dated 20th June, 1963, reproduced above. It is clear that the entitlement of the petitioner was subject to the ceiling applied to the urban claimants under para. 8 of the Settlement Scheme. It has already been pointed out that the first such circular prescribing the ceiling came out on 16th February, 1959, and the areas where no allotments could be made were demarcated by red line and the rest of the area of Lahore District was mere available for adjustment of urban claims not exceeding 30 kanals in any case. The subsequent reduction in the ceiling which came to be enforced on 10th February, 1960, under the area rationing system is sought to be avoided by the petitioners. It is not denied that even that dispensation and prescription of the ceiling by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was in exercise of no other power but under para. 8 of the Supplementary Scheme No. II which ceiling was adopted by the Central Government by reference to its letter of 1963, creating an entitlement in persons of the category of the petitioners. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that para. 1 of the circular letter deals with available land for allotment under Supplementary Scheme No. II and the rationing of the area and the ceiling of 4 kanals was limited to available area and not to the area described in para. 2 which was already under occupation of old temporary and quasi- permanent allotees.
7. We would go alongwith the learned counsel for the appellant in his submission that this para, 2 was introduced with an eye on the second proviso to para. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No. II which was to come 10 days after creating an entitlement in favour of temporary allottees who were claimants of rural land but who had been entitled on urban land temporarily for sufficiently long period of time. This inference has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the fact that at the time the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner as well as Secretary, Rehabilita--petition happened to be one and the same Officer.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rural claimants settled in Lahore should not be subjected to the ceiling fixed under the area rationing system but should be governed by the higher ceiling fixed earlier is not tenable. On 26th June, 1963, when entitlement of rural claimants was finally established it was provided that the allotment to them should not exceed "the area held by them in temporary allotment or the maximum scale of allotment fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under para. 8 of the Scheme, for the first round of urban allotments which--ever is less subject to title". It is not disputed that both the ceilings were fixed while the very first round of urban allotments was taking place. The ceiling under the area rationing system having already been enforced by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under para. 8 of the urban claimants, being a part of the Scheme itself. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has the effect of creating a dichotomy, a higher ceiling for rural claimants than for urban claimants. Such an incongruity is provided neither in express terms in the circular of the Chief Settlement Commissioner nor follows by necessary implication. We do not find that any legal error has been committed in either interpreting the scale of allotment or in applying, to the appellants.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.