Petitioner is a J&K refugee. He was allotted 74 kanals and 5 marlas of irrigated land in village Bhaiki, Tehsil Phalia, district Gujrat vide order dated 27-1-1969 passed by the DSC (Lands), Gujrat. (Annex.
B). The allotment was temporary by way of `Gazara'. This land was subsequently declared by the Custodian as non-evacuee vide order dated 13-7-1977 (Annex. D). Thereafter, the petitioner had been agitating for the allotment of alternate land and finally on 14-6-1982 and 21-7-1982, he was allotted 54 kanals 19 marlas of land in villages Heria and Bahowal, Tehsil Phalia, district Gujrat vide Annexure E. These facts have not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. It appears that after obtaining the aforementioned alternate allotment petitioner has been approaching the concerned authorities with the request that since the J&K refugees were entitled to the allotment of 12 acres of irrigated land or 18 acres of unirrigated land, he should be allotted more land so as to completely satisfy his entitlement but the authorities turned down his request vide orders Annexures F and G. Hence the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department does not deny that according to the policy, J&K refugees were entitled to the allotment of 12 acres of irrigated or 18 acres of unirrigated land but he submits that the allotment at the said scale cannot possibly be made at this belated stage when the evacuee lands are not easily available. Learned counsel further points out that when the petitioner was initially allotted 74 kanals and 5 marlas of land in the year 1969, he did not agitate that the allotment made to him was deficient. He is thus precluded from putting forward any claim based on the aforementioned scale of allotment. According to the learned counsel, petitioner may at the most claim the difference between his initial allotment and the alternate allotment viz 19 kanals though it may not be possible to allot him even this much area firstly because of the ban imposed on fresh allotments and secondly on account of non-availability of lands. Petitioner who is present in Court, however, states that the lands are still available and he would not mind allotment being made to him anywhere in the Province of Punjab.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having noted the admitted facts, I am of the view that since the land originally allotted to the petitioner was cancelled for no fault of his, he was entitled to alternate allotment of equivalent area. 55 kanals of land already stands allotted to him. He is, therefore, entitled to the allotment of another 19 kanals to make up the deficiency.
Respondent is, therefore, directed to allot 19 kanals of land more to the petitioner wherever available. Before concluding, it may be noted that the petitioner had also made a grievance in the writ petition that the authorities were illegally demanding the enhanced price at Rs. 100 per P.I. Unit whereas he was liable to pay only Rs. 10 per unit which was the prescribed rate before 1-6-1962.
Learned counsel, however, does not press this point and states that the petitioner shall pay the enhanced price aforementioned.