' The dispute in this Constitution petition pertains to allotment of evacuee agricultural land situated in revenue estate Jalalpur Sohbtian, Tehsil and District Gujrat which was resumed from one refugee-allottee Mst. Farrukh Jahan vide order, dated 2-11-1992 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer, Gujranwala Division (camp at Gujrat).
2. Although this petition has a chequered history yet the facts in the background of this petition are not fortunately in dispute. Mst. Farrukh Jahan and Mst. Aslam Jahan were the legal heirs of Mir Mehrban deceased who abandoned vast movable as well as immovable property in the District of Rautak (India) in communal disturbances in 1947. After migration to Pakistan they settled in village Jalalpur Sohbtian, District Gujrat, submitted their claim for verification by Claim Organisation who issued them entitlement-certificates. They, thereafter secured allotment of agricultural land situated in various revenue-estates including revenue estate Jalalpur Sohbtian, District Gujrat. On 31-1-1967 they received a notice from the Deputy Secretary (Rural)/Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the purpose of appearance on 7-2-1967 for submitting certain explanations.
They entered appearance before the said authority. The hearing was chariged from time to time till 18-5-1967 when they were asked to make a detailed statement in respect of their claims and allotments secured by them. The statement was made by Kalim Ahmad General Attorney of Mst.
Farrukh Jahan and Asmat Jahan. This, however, did not bring the matter to end. Thereafter, they were asked to submit full details of their claims as well as allotments secured by them. Feeling aggrieved with these proceedings, Nist. Farrukh Jahan and Mst. Asmat Jahan filed Writ Petition No,994-R of 1967. During the hearing of the same one Mr. Razi Haider, Naib-Tehsildar entered appearance in pursuance of the order of the Court and stated that according to record Mst.
Farrukh Jahan was owner of 23575 P.I.Us., while she had secured allotment of agricultural land in various revenue estates to the extent of 30554 P.I.Us., including the land situated revenue estate Jalalpur Sohbtian, District Gujrat (hereinafter described as disputed land). According to him she had secured excess allotment to the extent of 6979 P.I.Us. This statement of Mr. Razi Haider was not disputed by Mst. Farrukh Jahan. In result thereof the petition filed by Mst. Farrukh Jahan and Mst.
Ismat Jahan was dismissed and the Settlement Authorities were found entitled to deal with the case of these allottees according to the statement of Mr. Razi Haider and documents marked A & B.
This happened vide judgment of this Court, dated 20-11-1973.
3. Pursuant to order noted above, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by means of order, dated 15-4-1982,"resumed the land allotted to Mst. Farrukh Jahan to the extent of land equivalent to 6979 P.I.Us. and further in exercise of his powers under section 12(2) of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act No,XLVII of 1958 (Shortly hereafter stated as Act) made the sale of so resumed land to Mst. Farrukh Jahan at the rate of Rs.10 per unit. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No,303-R of 1982 which was disposed of by the consent of the parties vide order, dated 18-2-1990 and the case was remanded back to the Notified Officer for decision of the question as to whether the Notifed Officer had power to allow sale of excess land resumed from the allottee under section 12(2) of the Act and whether the petitioners were informers and were entitled to benefit of section 14(1-A) of the Act.
4. In view of this order, the Additional Commissioner/Notified Officer, Gujranwala found that the petitioners were not informers within the meaning of section 14(1-A) of the Act as they had not submitted any application under section 10/11 of the Act against Mst. Farrukh Jahan and Mst. Ismat Jahan. It was further held that the allotment had been made two decades back and that the properties allotted to Mst. Faruukh Jahan and Mst. Ismat Jahan had changed from more than one hands and, therefore, it was appropriate to make the sale in favour of Mst. Farrukh Jahan and Mst.
Ismat Jahan under section 12(2) of the Act. This Constitution petition has been filed by the petitioners in order to challenge the validity/propriety of order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 2-11-1992.
5. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners impeached the impugned order on two-fold grounds: Firstly that the petitioners though had not lodged information under section 10/11 of the Act, yet they were brought on record as party by this Court in W.P. No,994-R of 1967 which was dismissed vide order, dated 20-11-1973. Thereafter, when the Settlement authorities resumed proceedings to deal with the case of Mst. Farrukh Jahan, petitioners had been participating in the proceedings and proved before the concerned authorities that Mst. Farrukh Jahan had secured allotment over and above her entitlement. On the basis of the material furnished by the petitioners the Notified Officer came to the conclusion that Mst. Farrukh Jahan was in possession of the area more than her entitlement and resumed the excess allotment. On these circumstances it was contended that petitioners were informers and were entitled to benefit under section 14(1 A). of the Act. Secondly, that the Notified Officer had no jurisdiction to exercise the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, had no authority to make sale of resumed land in favour of Mst. Farrukh Jahan. Reliance was placed on Sher Muhammad v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1971 SCM R 339, Ghulam Muhammad v. Member, Board of Revenue 1988 SCM R 514, Said Muhammad v. Addl. Settlement Commissioner 1988 CLC 1276; Rehmat Ali v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1980 SC 214, Maj. Altaf Khan v. Mst. Gaiti Ara 1980 SCMR 1036 and Shahnawaz v. Member, Board of Revenue PLD 1978 SC 266.
6. From the above narration the questions arising for decision are whether on facts available on the record, the petitioners can be treated as informer under section 14(1-A) of the Act and are entitled to seek allotment of land resumed from Mst. Farrukh Jahan and whether the Notified Officer had authority to make sale of land resumed from Mst. Farrukh Jahan to her under section 12(2) of the Act. In order to answer the first question it will be proper to refer to historical background of section 14(1-A) of the Act. With the dawn of Independence our newly-created country was confronted with massive and gigantic task of rehabilitation/re-settlement of Muslims who were displaced from India and driven to this country. Number of legislative as well as executive measures were taken by this country to this effect. On 23-9-1958, the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), was promulgated with an object to provide for the permanent settlement of displaced persons on land in order to compensate them for the lossess suffered by them on account of expropriation by the Government of India of their rights in property in India or in any area occupied by India, and for matters incidental thereto, or connected therewith". Under this Act permanent settlement of displaced persons was undertaken. Agricultural land in compensation pool under section 5 of the Act was finally allotted to displaced persons having verified claims in accordance with the mechanism provided under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 and other Schemes and circulars issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. With the passage of time it dawned upon the concerned authorities that huge number of persons had maneouvred to secure allotment of land by means of practising fraud and deception upon Settlement/Rehabilitation Authorities. In order to unearth such allotments section 14(1-A) was inserted in the Act by means of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act on 30-7-1973. Thereafter, section 14(1-A) was put in Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
(Amendment) Ordinance (VI of 1974). Finally this provision in a bit modified form was made part of the Act by means of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (Amendment) Act XXXVI of 1974 which came into force on 15-5-1974.
7. From the aforesaid historical perspective of section 14(1-A) it is quite clear to me that underlying object of this legislative provision was to provide a mechanism for the purpose of unearthing the allotments of land in compensation pool secured by different persons through means of misrepresentation, fraud and deceit. In order to achieve this purpose this provision provided an incentive to those displaced persons who were well-equipped with knowledge regarding acquisition of fraudulent allotments and were having claim which was still pending settlement. In order to have a better understanding of the object and scope of section 14(1-A) as amended, it will be useful to reproduce this section in extenso. It reads as under:-- "(1-A) Where, at any time before or after the commencement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 (LV of 1973), any person has furnished or furnishes information about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land and the information has been or is proved to be correct and such land has been or is resumed by competent authority, upon the cancellation of the allotment of such land, the informant shall be entitled (a) if he is a claimant, to allotment of the resumed land to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same Province or, if the resumed land has already been allotted to some other persons, to the allotment, to the said extent, of any other land of his choice available for allotment in the same Province; and (b) in any other case, to a cash award of such amount as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may decide."
8. From the close reading of the above provisions it becomes clear that it has three parts (i) that some person has furnished or furnishes information about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land before commencement of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973; (ii) that the information had been or is proved to be correct and such land has been or is resumed by the competent authority; (iii) that upon the cancellation of allotment of such land the infomant is bestowed with a right to seek allotment of resumed land to the extent of his unsatisfied pending claim. It clearly follows that the informant is entitled to benefit under this subsection to the extent of his unsatisfied claim. The question for decision is who is informant within the meaning of this provision. It is settled principle of construction that every Statute is to be interpreted in organic manner and further if any word in the given Statute is not defined, then ordinary meanings of the word are to be followed. 'Informant' ordinarily means "one who communicates information, one who informs against another, one who lays information against another regarding some infraction of law. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)". Word 'Informant' in the above section 14(1-A) has not been defined. Therefore, I hold that this will be interpreted according to above meaning given in the Dictionary. Guided by the above principles, it becomes clear that a person will be treated as informant who had taken some initiatory steps in commencing proceedings in time before or after the commencement of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act (LV of 1973) under section 10 of the Act. No other person is entitled to claim benefit under this section.
Applying this principle to the facts and circumstances of this case it is clear that the petitioner had not laid any information before or after the advent of Act (LV of 1973). Petitioners are thus, not entitled to be treated as informant on the simple ground that they were impleaded as Party in Writ Petition No,994-R of 1967 by this Court and had participated in the proceedings thereafter. The conclusion arrived at by the Notified Officer is, therefore, eminently correct and in consonance with law and does not call for any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners proceed on distinguishable facts and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
9. So far the second question is concerned though Notified Officer had authority under subsection
(2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), to decide the pending matters in consonance with the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act under section 12(2) the Notified Officer had the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to make the sale of the land in compensation pool. The Notified Officer had made the sale after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case. He had come to the conclusion that the allotments were made two decades back, that the property had been changing from more than one hands and in the interest of justice, it was proper to make sale of resumed land in favour of Mst. Farrukh Johan. This decision of the Notified Officer is neither arbitrary nor perverse, therefore, does not call for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction which is intended to foster justice between the parties.
10. In the light of foregoing analysis this Constitution petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.