This petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, dated 9-10-1972 by which he had declined the request of the petitioner for allotment of Surveys Nos. 71 and 75 of Deb Drigh, Taluka Karachi. The petitioner was however, allowed to receive compensation for 323 unsettled unit at C.P. IX (Land).
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had a verified claim in respect of Garden and Agricultural Land left by him. He was issued a certificate for 5700 P.I. Units of Agricultural Land by C.R.O. Lahore for settlement in Thatta The petitioner wanted to have this land transferred to Karachi, but he was not allowed. However, on temporary basis survey Nos. 71 and 75 of Deb Drigh, Taluka Karachi, measuring 17.21 acres were allotted to him. The petitioner had applied for a direction that his entitlement certificate be amended to include the urban garden land units. But meanwhile MLRs 84 and 89 were promulgated and the entitlement of the petitioner was reduced to 2305 of P.1, Units, which included 323 units of urban garden land.
3. Agricultural land was allotted to the petitioner in Thatta, but no urban garden land was allotted to him. On 12-1-1963, the petitioner was directed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi to surrender Survey Nos. 70, 71 and 75 of Deb Drigh. The petitioner offered to purchase the said land as a surrendered land, but his request was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner had only a temporary allotment and not under any approved scheme for permanent allotment on agricultural land.
4. The petitioner, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed Petition No. 160/66, challenging the order of the Settlement Authorities not allowing him to purchase the surrendered land. The High Court held that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was merely stop-gap arrangement jnd it did not confer any right to the allottee to the benefits of para. 4 of the scheme framed under Martial Law Regulations, 1969. The High Court further observed that since the land in question had been declared to be building site by the Chief Settlement commissioner vide Notification No. 2294- 64/2526R (L), dated 22nd May, 1964, therefore, the land had gone out of the compensation pool. In this respect decision in C.P. 348/67 was relied upon, the petition was dismissed. However, the High Court observed that if the petitioner could prove that this entitlement in relation to garden land remains to be satisfied, he will be at liberty to move the Settlement Authority for its satisfaction and added that if under law, as it now stands, it is admissible for the Settlement Authorities to accommodate the petitioner's unsatisfied claim, if any, by allotting to him the land already in his possession, it would relieve a manifest hardship.
5. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed L.P.A. No. 19/72. However, meanwhile on 4-10-1972, the authorised Settlement Commissioner, Karachi on the application of the petitioner allotted to the petitioner Survey No. 70 on 17-11-1971 of Deb Drigh, measuring 4.8 acres minus the area of Astana measuring 2,000 square yards on the ground of possession. Survey Nos. 71 and 7 was not allotted to the petitioner as the same stood transferred to the T & T, Department. The order of the authorised Settlement Commissioner has reproduced the observations of the Hon'ble Judge in the High Court made in Petition No. 160/66 and the allotment of Survey No. 70 inn favour of the petitioner is entirely on account of observations made bf the High Court.
6. On 31-10-1978, the L.P.A. Of the petitioner rearing No. 19/72 was withdrawn without prejudice to the right of (tie appellant, if any, available to him to get satisfaction of his verified claim in respect of 7 acres garden land as mentioned in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment of Mr. Justice Muhammad A.I Saeed, dated 28th September, 1971.
7. On 30th November, 1978, the petitioner racres of moved land. The land bearing Nos. 70, 71 and 75 against his authorised officer obtained legal opinion and favourable. On 10-1979, the petitioner, but the legal opinion was not found authorised Officer rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that Notification dated 11-2-1966 and 3-10-1973, declaring Survey Nos. 71 and 75 of Deb Drigh, Taluka Karachi, as building site and then filed the declaring survey 'petition as Katchi Abadi, cannot be revoked. The petitioner then filed the present petition.
8. This petition has to be dismissed on the sole ground that Survey Nos. 71 and 75 having been declared to be building site, the same went out of the compensation pool as held in the petition filed by this petitioner bearing No. 160/66 and Petition No. 395/66 as well as Petition No. 348/1967.
The decision in this respect against the petitioner has become final as he had withdrawn L.P.A.
Against the said judgment and the matter was not agitated upto the Supreme Court, therefore, the law declared by the Hon'ble Judge in Petition No. 160/66 that once a property is declared as a building site which goes out of compensation pool is final and the petitioner cannot challenge the same. Therefore, the petitioner could not ask the Settlement Authorities for allotment of Survey Nos.
71 and 75 because they had gone out of compensation pool and the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to allot the same to the petitioner. It was rightly held by the authorised Settlement Commissioner that after the repeal of the Settlement Laws the Notification which had declared an Agricultural Land as building site could not be revoked. The judgment is, therefore, correct and does not require any interference. Moreover, Survey No. 71 has also been declared as Katchi Abadi in 1973 and from the perusal of the title of L.PA. No. 19/1972, it appears that there are number of squatters on the land claimed by the petitioner, who had not been impleaded in this petition, although they were regarded as a necessary party in respect of the same land in the earlier proceedings. This petition was, therefore, defective in that respect, as well. In any case an order declaring a land in Katchi Abadi after it had come out of compensation pool on account of it having been declared as a building site earlier, cannot be revoked merely because the petitioner had a temporary allotment of the said land in his favour. The claim of the petitioner had been denied by the High Court in 1971 and hence the Notification in respect of Katchi Abadi could not be challenged. Consequently, Survey No. 71 was not available to the petitioner on this ground as well.
This petition is, therefore, found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the remaining claim of the petitioner in respect of 323 units or so can either be satisfied by payment of compensation to him or in case the petitioner finds available agricultural land then his claim should be considered as against that land by the Board of Revenue Sind.