Through this Constitutional Petition Mst. Allah Rakhi petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 30-3-1976 of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Narowal, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition, briefly, are that Umar Din, father of Mst. Allah Rakhi petitioner was allotted 60 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land on temporary basis for maintenance in village Fleezepur, Tehsil Narowal. Umar Din died in 1956. Thereafter, on the application of the predecessor- in-interest of the private respondents, the allotment was cancelled by D.R.C. On 30-8-1961. Feeling aggrieved of this order, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 27-8-1964. Mst. Allah Rakkhi petitioner then filed revision which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner and the matter was remanded to Deputy Settlement Commissioner who restored the allotment on 19-2-1971. Bootay Khan, father of respondents Nos. 2 to 12 filed appeal before Additional Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case to D.S.C. With the direction that it should be enquired into whether the petitioner was in fact daughter of Umar Din and was entitled to the restoration of allotment in favour of Umar Din. The D.S.C. Vide impugned order, dated 30-7-1976 reverted the land to compensation pool holding that the petitioner although the daughter of Umar Din yet could not inherit the land allotted to him on temporary basis, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could legally inherit the land allotted to Umar Din, her father, and as such, the impugned order was quite illegal. No one has appeared for the private respondents. The learned counsel for Settlement Department has supported the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Umar Din was a Jammu and Kashmir refugee; that the land was allotted to him for maintenance only and that the petitioner was a married woman and was living with her husband.
For these reasons, I am of the A view that the land could not be inherited by Mst. Allah Rakkhi. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner has rightly reverted the land. To the compensation pool.
While passing the impugned order, the learned DS.C. Has not violated any provision of relevant law.
5. For what has been said above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MA.K./A-633/L