The petitioner, Federation of Pakistan has moved this Constitutional petition praying that the impugned orders passed by the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.l, Kh. Muhammad Yousaf, is a displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was allotted land measuring 132 Kanals in village Khanna Kak, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi by the Rehabilitation Authority on 15-6-1956 on temporary basis in lieu of free ration. The said respondent continuously remained in possession of the said land from the year 1963 onwards. On 11-11-1978 respondent No.l submitted Form No.4280 requesting for grant of proprietary rights to him over an area of 115 Kanals and 17 Marlas. An entry was made by the concerned Patwari on 2-4-1981 in favour of the respondent No.l which entry was later on cancelled by Naib-- Tehsildar/A.C.-Il Islamabad vide his order dated 8-4-1981 on the ground that signatures of the respondent No.l on the Form No.4280 appeared to be fabricated. The respondent challenged the order of Tehsildar/A.C.II before the A.C./Collector Sadar Sub-Division by filing an appeal which was dismissed as time-barred on 8-5-1984. Respondent No.l assailed the above-said order by moving a revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) who proceeded to accept the same and remanded the case to the Tehsildar for its decision in accordance with law.
On remand, a fresh Mutation No.1639 was entered by the concerned Patwari and the same was duly sanctioned by the Tehsildar/A.C.I, Rawalpindi on 18-11-1984. Consequently, the proprietary rights of the land in question were conferred upon the respondent regarding the land measuring 59 Kanals and 15 Marlas. The order dated 22-8-1984 was challenged by the petitioner before the- Member Board of Revenue who after hearing the parties rejected the revision petition on 13-8-1985.
The petitioner questioned the aforesaid order by filing W.P. No.486 of 1985 before this Court wherein it was directed by the High Court on 22-6-1986 that the Collector shall decide the matter as the same was pending adjudication before him by way of an appeal. Thereafter, the Collector vide his order dated 22-1-1987 proceeded to accept the appeal and accordingly Mutation No.1639 was cancelled from the name of the respondent No.l on the ground that the land in question was never allotted in his favour. The contesting respondent celled in question the above order by filing appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who vide his order dated 31-5-1987 accepted the same and set aside the order dated 22-1-1987 having been passed by the Collector. In other words, the order of Tehsildar/A.C.I dated 18--11-1984, sanctioning mutation No.1639 in favour of respondent No.l regarding an area of 59 Kanals and 15 Marlas was restored in favour of the respondent. The petitioner went in revision before the learned Member Board of Revenue which was heard and dismissed by him on 25-2-1988.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government of Pakistan contends that there is not an iota of evidence to show that the land in question was ever allotted to the respondent as a Jammu and Kashmir Refugee. He has relied upon the observation made by the Collector in that behalf, holding that allotment register does not contain the signatures of the Rehabilitation Authority whereby the land in question was allotted to the said respondent. Further, there is no serial number having been allotted to the contesting respondent as an allottee of the land in question. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that he is admittedly a bona fide displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He argues that the land in question was allotted to him on temporary basis in lieu of free ration. He places reliance on a number of documents to prove his right over the land in question. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, an Officer on Special Duty, Jammu and Kashmir Rehabilitation and Settlement Organisation, is present with the requisite allotment register. His detailed statement has also been recorded by me today in Court.
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have read the record very minutely. I have also seen the allotment register which categorically shows beyond doubt that the land in question was temporarily allotted to the respondent in the year 1956 against free ration. It is true that there is no serial number against the allotment of respondent No.l. However, 1 have checked the whole register of allotments of evacuee land in favour of as many as 466 people. I further find that there are no serial numbers having been allotted against the allotments so made by the allotting authorities to any allottee. I am, therefore, convinced that the land in question was definitely allotted to the contesting respondent as Jammu and Kashmir displaced person. The status of the contesting respondent as a Jammu and Kashmir displaced person has been admitted by Mr. Nisar Ahmad O.S.D. J & K Rehabilitation and Settlement Organisation. Further, there is a finding of fact arrived at by the competent Settlement authorities to show that the land in question was genuinely allotted to the respondent. The learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) vide his order dated 31-5- 1987 proceeded to observe that the conclusion arrived at by the learned A.C. Sadar Sub-Division is devoid of any logic and definitely the same is based on the non-- reading and misreading of the documentary evidence available on record. Consequently, the conferment of ownership rights over an area of 59 Kanals and 15 Marlas in the name of the contesting respondent vide Mutation No.1639 was upheld by the said competent authority. This is clearly a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner which of course stood confirmed by the learned Member Board of Revenue vide is judgment dated 25-2-1988 on the basis of documentary evidence. The entire evidence of the case was scrutinised by the learned Member Board of Revenue and after doing so, he came to a finding of fact that the respondent No.l being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee was allotted the land in question. Thus, there is absolutely no scope left in law for interference in the case. From the above narration of the facts, it is, therefore, apparent that the land in question was alloted on temporary basis in favour of the contesting respondent as a Jammu and Kashmir displaced person and that the ownership rights of the said land were also conferred upon him by the competent authority in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any error of law much less the jurisdictional defects in the judgments passed by the competent Settlement Authorities. In my view, the ownership rights of the land now absolutely vest in the contesting respondent and as such, it is not possible at this stage to interfere in the lawful orders having been passed by the Settlement Authorities. Even otherwise temporary allotment made in favour of a Jammu and Kashmir refugee like respondent No.l is immune from cancellation under para.4-A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 1957. The said scheme was framed under section 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. Even otherwise, under the mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the Displaced Persons Evacuee Laws Repeal Act 1975 the land in dispute has to be sold to the contesting respondent who has been found to be its temporary allottee. In pith and substance, the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.), and the learned Member Board of Revenue, are strictly in accordance with law mentioned above. The impugned orders are, therefore, unexceptionable and immune from challenge. The documents attached with the written statement of respondent No.l, i.e. Temporary Allotment Slip (Annexure `A'), Naqsha Taqseem-e-Muhajreen (Annexure `B'), Copy of Register of Temporary Allotment (Annexure `C'), Copy of Register Girdawari pertaining to year 1963-67 (Annexure `D'), application for conferment of proprietary rights (Annexure `E') and D.O. Letter No.J-260 Murree Road dated 6-10- 1980 (Annexure `F'), are credit-worthy documents which would demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that the contesting respondent was definitely allotted the land in question on temporary basis in lieu of free ration. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned Law Officer that the allotment of the contesting respondent was fabricated and accordingly I proceed to repel the same.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of force which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.