' The validity of the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 23-4-1971, and the memo of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 24-1-1984 are called in question in this Constitutional petition.
The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of mandatory order directing respondent No,1, Member, Board of Revenue, and respondent No,3, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) to incorporate the ownership of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute in Revenue Record, in accordance with law.
2. The salient features of this petition are that the petitioners claim the transfer of the disputed land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas in Dhoke Tahlian Qasbati, Rawalpindi in Khasra No,390/1. It may be mentioned over here that the said Khasra No,390/1 comprised of 9 kanals 14 marlas. The claim of the petitioners is that they are displaced persons from non-agreed area of India, that the land measuring 5 kanals 10 marlas in Khasra No,390/1 in the aforesaid village was transferred to them in satisfaction of their claim on 20-2-1960. The order of the confirmation is interesting and it is advantageous to be reproduced here which is as below:- {{URDU TEXT}} "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI
3. The remaining portion of the said khasra i.e, land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas is claimed to have been confirmed in favour of Muhammad Rafi son of Allah Diya through RL -II No,25. Assertion is made to the effect in this petition that the khatauni was issued to the petitioners. However, the entries of RL -II No,21 were not recorded in the Revenue Record and, therefore, it remained as an available evacuee property. The petitioners have been approaching the Revenue Authorities for the incorporation of entries of their ownership in the Revenue Record but without any success. The petitioners gave an application on 2-8-1974 to ADC (R) Rawalpindi, to the same effect.
4. Applications to the same effect were repeated before the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi on 2-9-1978. In pursuance of the aforesaid applications, the Patwari made a report on 29-12-1978 wherein it was specifically stated that the said land had been confirmed to the petitioners and that it was not recorded in the Revenue Record, therefore, it was necessary that the entries in the Revenue Record be made in accordance with the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners went on with the aforesaid exercise and eventually the petitioners filed appeal against the order of the Collector dated 8-4-1981 to the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi by his order dated 28-3-1982 accepted the appeal and went on to observe as follows:- "The appellants who have come forward though at a belated stage cannot be refused the relief which they are demanding. As the suit land stands allotted in the name of the appellants they are entitled to it. As mentioned in the order of the lower Court that this land has been required for the extension of the Central Hospital and the Government shall have to pay the compensation to the owners. Unless the names of the allottees are entered in the Revenue Record they will lose their right. The Land Record Manual Chapter 7 subsection 6 lays down that the entries of allotment of the Evacuee land were to be incorporated in the record of rights and periodical record. These lawful instructions have been violated by the concerned Revenue staff and for no default of the appellants.
' For the reasons given above, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the necessary entries about the allotment of the appellants be made in the concerned Revenue Record."
5. There is another picture of this case also. On 23-4-1971, the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his powers under subsection (b) of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958, was pleased to accord sanction to the sale of evacuee land measuring 223 kanals and 18 marlas in village Dhoke Tahlian Qasbati, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi to the Health Department for extension of District Headquarter Hospital, Rawalpindi on the payment of sale price which was to be worked out on the basis of the award of Land Acquisition Collector dated 28-1- 1959. This order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 23-4-1971 is Annexure D, with this petition.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners gave an application to the Member Board of Revenue on 18-1-1984 to the effect that the disputed land be withdrawn from the sale to the Health Department on the ground that area stood confirmed to the petitioners, therefore, could not be dealt with under subsection (b) of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958. This application did not find favour with the Member Board of Revenue who by his order dated 24-1-1984 rejected the application. He came to the conclusion that the land in question stood transferred to the Health Department for extension of Headquarter Hospital Rawalpindi and that the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi had no power after the promulgation of Act XIV of 1975 to pass the order dated 28-3-1982, therefore, according to the Member Board of Revenue, this order was plainly without jurisdiction and was of no avail to anyone.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition assailed the order of the Member Board of Revenue and the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 23-4-1971 on the premises that on 20-2-1960, the property in dispute was transferred to him and the property in dispute could not be dealt with under subsection (b) of section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. It was argued that the Chief Settlement Commissioner as well as the other Settlement Authorities had no authority to deal with the disputed property in any manner after the confirmation of the property to the petitioners. Reliance was placed on Messrs Pakistan Paint Mills Ltd. v. Dr. Abdul Rauf and 9 others (1970 SCMR 739) Sh.Fazal-urRehman v. Pakistan through Secretary (1987 SCMR 1036), Rahim Bakhsh v. Ch. Ahmad Bakhsh and others (PLD 1964 SC 189), Devachand Muljimal v. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and others (PLD t 966 SC 356), Syed Zulfiqar All Shah and 16 others v. Ch. Muhammad Hassan, DSC West Pakistan and another (PLD 1971 Lah.108).
8. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were without any force. As a matter of fact all the documents which were produced before the Court were uncertified copies and the originals had been withheld and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief under the extraordinary remedy of the constitutional jurisdiction. Secondly it was represented that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 28-3-1982 was procured through deceit and misrepresentation and that the property stood transferred to Rawalpindi General Hospital over which the project of welfare had been built.
9. At the outset it may be mentioned over here that the learned counsel for the petitioners was repeatedly inquired in respect of the source of his Entitlement and subsequent confirmation, explicitly the relevant provisions of the Martial Law Regulation Nos.84, 89 and 91 in respect of issuance of Entitlement Certificate in regard of claims of displaced persons from non-agreed area were brought to his notice. Nevertheless the learned counsel for the petitioners did not give any reply in respect of his own Entitlement Certificate. It may be stated over here that the petitioners were directed to place the original documents on the record by the orders of this Court dated 29- 6-1987 and 31-10-1987 as well as on 7-11-1988. But, despite these clear orders, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to produce the original documents on record.
10. According to the case of the petitioners, the petitioners had come from a non-agreed area.
Annexure A is Entitlement Certificate regarding the Urban Evacuee Area abandoned in India. It was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was a QPR issued to them by the Central Record Office, Lahore. The examination of Entitlement Certificate indicates only that the Entitlement Certificate was issued by the Central Record Office in respect of 222 PI units. The uncertified copy of Entitlement Certificate has been placed on the Record.
11. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not give any reply in respect of this Entitlement Certificate. It was only contended by him that this Entitlement Certificate was in fact a QPR issued to the petitioners under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (III of 1956). The holders of such claims were required to submit a statement of true facts under paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation No,84. The statements were to be scrutinized under para. 4 of the Martial Law Regulation No,89 (Reconstituted Martial Law Regulation 84). The Entitlement Certificate had to be issued under para. 6 of the said Regulation.
Para No,7 of the said Regulation provided for fresh allotment and cancellation of previous certificate of allotment. The said para. 7 is as follows:- ' Paragraph 7.
' Fresh allotment and cancellation of previous certificates and allotments.--
(1) All certificates in Forms QPR-V and UR-V and certificates showing title to land issued under the original Regulation and any allotment of land made on the basis of any such certificate shall stand cancelled and shall be deemed never to have been issued or made.
(2) Fresh orders for the allotment of land shall be made on the basis of Entitlement Certificate: ' Provided that--
(i) where an allotment order had been issued to any claimant such order may be modified so as to conform to the Entitlement Certificate and such modified order shall be deemed to be a fresh allotment order made under this paragraph; and
(ii) the fresh allotment order shall, as far as may be, include the land previously allotted to a claimant.
12. On the above analysis it becomes clear that the Regulation provided a comprehensive machinery for the purpose of verification the scale of Entitlement, issuance of fresh Entitlement Certificate and fresh confirmation in favour of the claimant in accordance with the modified reduced Entitlement Certificate. The petitioners neither could show their original Entitlement Certificate nor they could prove their fresh Entitlement Certificate under para. 7 of the Martial Law Regulation 89/91, therefore, I have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the alleged Entitlement Certificate (Annexure A) is a classical example of a forgery.
13. The entries of the RL-II are also violative of the principles of Settlement. There is no entry in RL-II in respect of the proposal. The authority which passed the order, neither passed any order of proposal nor passed any order of the confirmation, nor issued any kham khatauni. Neither the allotment is a paper transaction nor the C same is decorative. That is made to settle the displaced persons permanently. RL-II is indicative of the fact that it was mere a paper transaction passed without any object of the settlement of displaced persons, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that this RL-II is also an instrument which is a forged one with ulterior motives and on account of the aforesaid fact the certified copy of the RL-II was not placed on record.
14. The next point of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land stood transferred and, therefore, the action of the Settlement to the petitioners. The petitioners have failed miserably to establish Authorities under section 12(2) is without jurisdiction, is not helpful their entitlement and the confirmation in their favour in respect of the suit land which had been in possession of the Public Health Department since 1954. The petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the entitlement of the respondents.
15. With the foregoing reasons, the petition fails, it is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs,