' By this judgment I propose to dispose of W.P.No, 31-R/1986, W.P.No, 111-R/1986, W.P.No,213-R/1986, W.P.No, 214-R/1986 and W.P.No, 215R/1986, as the questions of fact and law involved in all these petitions are one and the same and also as the main order under challenge is the order dated 29- 12-1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner. It may be added that though `mukhbari' application, subject-matter of W.P.No, 215-R/1986 was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.)/S.C.(L)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, vide order dated 29-12-1985, impugned in the petition, but this order is also based on the order dated 29-12-1985 impugned in other writ petitions. This petition, therefore, is also being disposed of alongwith other petitions.
2. There are four sets of parties in these petitions Abdul Majid, etc., the petitioners in W.P.No, 31- R/1986 are statedly the legal heirs of Mst. Chand Bibi daughter of Alaf Khan, allottee. Muhammad Siddique and others, the petitioners are one set of informers who statedly submitted application under section 10/11 of the Act laying information against the allotment of land obtained in the name of Chando in various villages. The second set of informers comprises of Muhammad Jamil and others, petitioners in W.P.No, 213-R/1986. The fourth set comprises of the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner (Land) who passed the impugned orders disposing of these `mukhbarf applications.
3. The relevant facts are that Abdul Majid, petitioner claiming to be the son of Chand Bibi filed a Claim Form No, 29223, in the name of Chand Bibi widow of Amrao Khan in respect of land situated in village Ferozepur Jirka, District Gurgaon (India) and another Claim Form No, 14429 was filed in the name of Chand Bibi by Kamal Khan acting as her `Mukhtar' in respect of land abandoned in India by Chando widow of Amrao Khan. The rural claim was verified for 6060 P.I. Units which on re- calculation were increased to 7474 P.I. Units. It appears that Revenue Officer Narowal Tehsil passed an order dated 5-10-1957 deciding Mutation No, 5 of refugees of village Loban H.B.No, 246, Tehsil Narowal relating to the inheritance of Mst. Chando. This order was appealed against by Mst. Chand Bibi daughter of Alaf Khan against Jaggu and Rahim Bux presumably claiming to be the sole heir of Mst. Chando. This appeal was accepted by D.R.C. (Land), Narowal vide order dated 14-4-1958 with the following observations:-- "There is nothing on record to prove Jaggu and Rahim Bux as the grandsons of Alaf Khan whereas Mst. Chand Bibi the appellant is proved to be the only daughter of Alaf Khan. None of the two respondents has come to Pakistan. I am therefore of the opinion that the appellant would inherit the entire property in question. The respondents if any can claim their share if and when they happen to come to Pakistan at any time and become the citizens of this country. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and direct that the mutation be given effect to as observed above."
' The claini with respect to the urban land abandoned in India was verified by the Claims Officer (Land), Lahore, for 17 Bighas and 17 Biswas of agricultural land within the urban limits of Ferozepur Jhirka, H.B.No, 73 of Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon and the entire land was verified in the name of Chand Bibi as sole heir of Amrao Khan deceased. Abdul Majeed and others claiming to be the legal representatives of Chand Bibi obtained allotment of land in various villages.
4. One Malik Muhammad Hussain filed `Mukhbari' application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on 14-9-1967 which was disposed of by Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan Mokal, Settlement Commissioner (L) vide order dated 1-8-1970, holding that Chand Bibi was entitled to receive 1/5th share from the inheritance of Amrao Khan and as such the allotments obtained in excess of the said 1/5th share were cancelled and the excess land was resumed. Abdul Majeed, etc. Challenged this order in the High Court by filing Settlement Revision No, 203/70. In the year 1978, Muhammad Siddique and others, one set of informers, got themselves impleaded in the Settlement Revision on the plea that they had filed `Mukhbari' application dated 30-3-1974 against the claim of Chand Bibi and allotments obtained by her legal representatives. In the proceedings of `Mukhbari' application, Muhammad Siddique submitted another application on 13-6-1974 saying that Chand Bibi has died and Abdul Majid her heir has secured allotment against her claim in certain other villages as well and that all such allotments of urban and rural land having been obtained fraudulently are liable to be cancelled. The proceedings held on this `Mukhbari' application were stayed on 18-10-1976 as stay order dated 29-9-1970 passed by the High Court in Settlement Revision No, 203/70 was produced. The Settlement Revision was accepted by this Court vide order dated 27-1-1979 and the case was remanded for fresh decision.
5. During the post-remand proceedings Abdul Majid, etc. Raised objection to the maintainability of the petition filed by Muhammad Siddique and otheRs, It is also pertinent to note here that Malik Muhammad Hussain who had submitted `Mukhbari' application on 14-9-1967 on which order dated 1-8-1970 was passed by thy- then Settlement Commissioner, (L) under section 10/11 of the Act and out of which Settlement Revision No, 203/70 had arisen, did not prosecute the proceedings any further and in his place Malik Muhammad Siddique, etc., the other set of `Mukhbars' pursued the proceedings and prosecuted the `Mukhbari' application. The learned Additional Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner passed an order dated 4-6-1981 to the effect that as the matter was already pending with him in view of remand order dated 27-1-1979 of the High Court, the second `Mukhbari' application of Muhammad Siddique and others was not maintainable and as such the same be filed. This order was challenged by Muhammad Siddique and others by filing W.P.No, 23-R/82, and the same was dismissed by learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 16-5-1982. Muhammad Siddique and others, petitioneri challenged this order before the Supreme Court through Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 674 of 1982. They also filed Civil Misc. Petition No, 567/82 seeking stay of the proceedings being held on another `Mukhbari' application filed by the third set of `Mukhbars' i,e, Muhammad Jamil and otheRs, This application was disposed of with the following order:-- "Heard. The petitioner is permitted to lead evidence before the authority concerned with regard to the allotment against which he made the Mukhbari. This is subject to all just exceptions and without prejudice to the right of any other person including the other Mukhbars and the allottees.
The remaining prayer in the petition is refused."
6. Now the proceeding held on the Mukhbari application of Muhammad Jamil and others be noted so as to complete the factual history of the case. This application was dismissed by the Notified Officer vide order dated 22-6-1981 which order was challenged in this Court by filing Writ Petition No, 531-R/1981. This petition was accepted and the matter was remanded vide order dated 2-2- 1982 for further proceedings to the Notified Officer, already seized of the Mukhbari application dated 15-8-1967 filed by Malik Muhammad Hussain.
7. The Additional Commissioner (Rev.) with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner held further proceedings in the `Mukhbari' applications and after recording the necessary evidence and perusal of the record disposed of the same vide order dated 29-12-1985, impugned in these petitions. The findings recorded in respect of each of the parties are as under:- Abdul Majeed and otheRs, L.Rs of Chand Bibi
8. They are entitled to retain land to the extent of 1/5th share of Chand Bibi i,e, to the extent of 1212 Units of rural land and 170 Units of Urban' land only and the remaining areas so got allotted was cancelled and resumed being in excess of their entitlement. It was further held that as the allotment of Kot Lakha Singh is prior in date, therefore, the allotment to the extent of 1212 Units out of total allotment of 4192 Units shall remain intact, but the land already sold to bona fide vendees to the said extent is to remain intact so that the innocent vendees may not suffer. Similarly, the urban allotment to the extent of 170 PIUs out of 230 allotted units was allowed to remain intact in village Amar Sindhu (Urban), Lahore. The remaining land so held in excess of their entitlement in villages Kot Lakha Singh, Bhedankhani, Mull Bajwa, Siraj, Khanowal, Lohan, Pakhoki, Ghusa, Narowal Khas, Negwal (Teh. Shakargarh), Marlwar, Mahmood Booti, Amar Sidhu (Teh. Lahore), Chakwal and Bhera (Teh. Bhalwal), as detailed in the order were cancelled. It was further observed that as the vendees purchased the land during the status quo orders, at their own risk, they are not entitled to any relief under the law.
Muhammad Jamil and others
9. The `Mukhbari' application filed by them was held to be bogus one. The plea that their case has also been remanded by the High Court vide judgment dated 2-2-1982 passed in W.P:No, 531/R/81, was noticed and it was observed that it has been clarified in the judgment itself that Settlement Commissioner will not be debarred from rejecting the `Mukhbari' application on grounds permissible under law. The Njtified Officer holding that `Mukhbari' application was not maintainable in 'aw being bogus one rejected the same.
Muhammad Siddique and others: ' After cancelling and resuming the land from Abdul Majid and others, the L.Rs, of Chand Bibi, The said land be allotted to Muhammad Siddique and others, informers in view of section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, because the area in dispute has been cancelled on their Mukhbari petition.
10. The Mukhbari application of Muhammad Jamil and others was against many persons. This application in so far as it related to land subject-matter of other Mukhbari applications was rejected vide order dated 29-121985 impugned in W.P. No, 213-R/1986 but so far as it related to Hashmat and others was rejected vide order dated 29-12-1985 and despite the fact that allotment obtained by Hashmat and others was cancelled still the Mukhbari application was dismissed being bogus one. This order was assailed in W.P. No, 215-R/1986.
11. The stage is now set to examine the pleas of the parties on merit. Muhammad Siddique. Etc. (W.P.
No, 111-R/86) Mukhbars in their writ petition claimed that the Additional Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner has acted illegally in holding that heirs of Abdul Majid or Chand Bibi were entitled to receive 1/5th share from the inheritance of Chando widow of Amrao Khan. In fact they could not claim the land abandoned by Amrao statedly owned by him in rural and urban area of Ferozepur Jucka as Mst. Chando admittedly died in India after partition and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 22-9-1947 and the said Chando stayed behind in India, so no legal representative could file any claim in Pakistan to receive any share and that the conduct of respondents 2 to 5 also disentitles them from any equitable relief as despite the status quo order issued by this Court in Settlement Revision they sold the land to different vendees and that Mst.
Chand Bibi on the one side has been shown to have died in May, 1967 but in Mutations Nos, 7553, 7436-M, 7429-M, 7410-09 pertaining to Bhalwal, District Sargodha, decided in 1977-78, Chand Bibi is shown to have sold the land herself. Again in Mutation No, 1120 sanctioned on 25-4-1974 in a statement the position taken was that Mst. Chand was still alive and that Jaggu and Rahim co- sharers of Mst. Chand have gone back to India. It was further asserted that they could not have filed a claim in respect of land as legal heirs of Amrao Khan. Muhammad Siddique and others therefore, seek quashment of the impugned judgment even to the extent that it allowed retention of 1/5th share of the allotted land by Abdul Majid and otheRs, They further seek a direction regarding resumption of the said land and allotment of same to them as informer. The petitioners also support the impugned order dated 29-12-1985 to the extent of Muhammad Jamil and others and the order dated 29-12-1985 impugned in W.P. No, 215-R/86 fully for the reasons included in the two ordeRs, It was argued that the Mukhbari application statedly filed by Muhammad Jamil and others is bogus one and was so held rightly. Muhammad Jamil. Etc. (W.P. No, 213-R/1986. W.P. NO, 214-R/1986 and W.P. No, 215-R/1986)
' They seek modification of the two orders in the manner that the entire land in dispute be resumed by cancelling the allotments obtained by Abdul Majid and others and the same be allotted to them treating them as the only informers in the field. They claim that petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Siddique and others against the judgment dated 16-5-1982 of the High Court dismissing the writ petition, was got dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 19th July, 1988 of the Supreme Court with the result that the order of the High Court dated 16-5-1982 dismissing the writ petition holds the field and consequently the order dated 4-6-1981 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissing Mukhbari application of Muhammad Siddique and others not only holds the field but has also become final. They oppose the writ petition of Abdul Majid, etc. As well on the grounds urged by Muhammad Siddique and others in their petition. They also seek cancellation of alleged excess land in the Khata of Sadaqat All Khan and allotment of land resumed from Jasmal and otheRs, ' I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on record of these petitions. The merits of each set of petitioners may now be examined.
W.P. No, 111-R/1986 ' The undeniable fact emerging from the record is that the proceedings were commenced against Abdul Majeed and others in Mukhbari application filed on 14-9-1967 by Muhammad Hussain. This application succeeded vide order dated 1-8-1970 of the then Settlement Officer exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, which order was then set aside by High Court in Settlement Revision No, 203/70 and the matter was remanded by the High Court for fresh decision vide judgment dated 27-1-1979. Malik Muhammad Hussain abandoned these proceedings which were then carried on by Muhammad Siddique, etc., who got themselves impleaded as a party in the Settlement Revision by moving an application for the said purpose in the year 1978, on the plea that they too had filed Mukhbari application against these very allotments. This Mukhbari application of Muhammad Siddique and others was admittedly filed on 30-3-1974 i,e, three years after the application dated 14-9-1967 of Malik Muhammad Hussain. Thus Muhammad Siddique and others cannot claim status of informers though they had been prosecuting the post-remand proceedings held since remand order dated 27-1-1979 of the High Court while Malik Muhammad Hussain had abandoned these proceedings. It was for this reason that their Mukhbari application was dismissed vide order dated 4-6-1981 by the Notified Officer and the said order holds the field in view of dismissal of the writ petition filed by them by the High Court vide order dated 16-5-1982. Though they filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court assailing the order of dismissal of writ petition, but that appeal was then got dismissed on the representation that the same has been rendered infructuous. During the pendency of the petition for special leave to appeal, on their application to stay the proceedings being held by Notified Officer on the application of Muhammad Jamil and in pursuance to the remand order dated 27-1-1979 and on the Mukhbari application of Muhammad Hussain, they were allowed to participate in the proceedings and to lead evidence but this was subject to all just exceptions and without prejudice to the rights of any person including other Mukhbars and the allottees. The opportunity to raise objection did not accrue to the Mukhbars and the allottees as the appeal was got dismissed as infructuous. It will be noticed that the petition for special leave to appeal had not been rendered infructuous as far as Muhammad Siddique and others were concerned merely for the reason that the Notified Officer had directed that after cancelling and resuming the land to the extent ordered the same be allotted to Muhammad Siddique, etc., vide order dated 29-12-1985 as the said order was under challenge in these writ petitions and secondly Muhammad Siddique stood ousted from the arena on account of dismissal of their Mukhbari application. The Notified Officer failed to notice this aspect of the matter and as such impugned order in so far as it recognises Muhammad Siddique and others as informers and directs allotment of the cancelled and resumed land in their favour is illegal, without lawful authority. Even on other score they could not claim status of an informer as their petition was incompetent having been filed against Mst. Chand Bibi, a dead person and the legal representatives of Chand Bibi, namely Abdul Majid, etc., were impleaded in these proceedings much after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It may be noted that plea of the learned counsel for Muhammad Siddique and others that legal representatives of Chand Bibi should be considered to have been impleaded vide application dated 13-6-1974, has no merit. The reference to this application (Annexure C/1 of W.P.No, 111/86) would show that the said application was moved for placing a copy of Register RL-II on record and the averments contained were to the effect that Mst. Chand Bibi has died and Abdul Majid son of Kanwal Bibi d/o Amir Caste Meo, resident of Kot Lakha Singh Wala has obtained allotment in different villages i,e, Amar Sandhu, Mehmood Booti, Mull Wala and other villages of District Sialkot, showing bogus heirs against Claim Form No, 29223, respecting land abandoned in Ferozepur Jhirka District, Ghargaun. This application cannot be treated as an application for impleading legal heirs of deceased Chand Bibi in the pending proceedings. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that Mukhbari application against a dead person is incompetent and legal heirs sought to be made party to the proceedings by moving application long after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is not to be allowed to the prejudice of such legal heiRs, On this very score as well as for the reason that Mukhbari application against the allotments having been filed in 1967, the second application dated 30-3-1974 of these petitioners was not competent, the petition of Muhammad Siddique and others (W.P. No, 23/R/82) was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16-5-1982. (See also 1986 M LD 552, 1983 CLC 2459 and 1986 M LD 2435). Muhammad Siddique, etc., as such cannot seek the status of informer and are not entitled to any allotment in the said capacity. The impugned order allotting land to them cannot, therefore, be sustained. The petition filed by them is without merit and is dismissed.
12. Now the petitions (W.P.No, 213-R/1986, W.P.No, 214-R/1986 and W.P.No, 215-R/1986) of Muhammad Jamil and others, another set of Mukhbars may be taken up. The Mukhbari application filed by them has been held to be bogus one. This petition, according to the version of these Mukhbars, was filed on 30-3-1974 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala admittedly against Mst.
Chando, a dead person. They did not implead the legal heirs of Mst. Chando admittedly before the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The impleadment of the legal heirs many years after the repeal of the law, is inconsequential. For this reason alone the application filed by them being incompetent could not be proceeded with and as such no jurisdiction existed in the Notified Officer to cancel the allotments of land obtained by the heirs of deceased claimant. The other reasons recorded'by the Notified Officer for holding this Mukhbari application as bogus, are that this application was statedly filed in Gujranwala when the allotments involved were obtained in different districts, rather in different Provinces, Punjab, Sindh and N.-W.F.P. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a petition as it was only the Chief Settlement Commissioner who could entertain such a petition; that so many petitioners have been mentioned in this petition, but in the proceedings sheet while noting the presence of parties, the words used are ' L t.o l.N " which is indicative of the fact that petition on which the proceedings were initiated was only one and single. This fact further stands supported from the entries of the Fard Talbana as well as Vakalatnama as the title of the case noted therein is "Zubaida Begum v. Hashmal etc." which cannot admittedly be the title of the petition as we find it presently. It will be noted that allotment in the name of Hashmal, etc. And two others is subject- matter of other petition i,e, Petition No, 215/R/86 and that order was also passed on the basis of this very Mukhbari application. The Notified Officer on the basis of these features emerging from the record, held the view that the Mukhbari petition was fabricated and Fard Talbana and Vakalatnama were removed from some other case and were inserted in this case and that perusal of the Mukhbari application itself shows that the same is bogus one. It was observed that how it could be possible that the petitioners pertaining to different districts managed to file a joint petition in District Gujranwala. The thumb-impression or signatures of most of the petitioners are not to be found on the petition, although their names have been given in the petition. Similarly, no Power of Attorneys executed by the petitioners as mentioned in the petition, have been attached. The Notified Officer further observed that there is another interesting thing of this case to be noted that although the proceedings are shown to have been continued from 1974 on this petition, but till 1979 the petitioners did not bother to furnish any proof in support of their alleged Mukhbari petition. He was further of the view that this petition was prepared and ante-dated somewhere in 1979 and it was got transferred to Lahore and later on it was linked with the case of Muhammad Siddique, etc. Mentioned above. Muhammad Siddique, etc., also produced a report of Ahlmad of D.C. Office, Gujranwala according to which the said Mukhbari application does not stand entered in the relevant Register. This report was not challenged in the petition as filed, but later on, an application was submitted by Muhammad Hamid in their petition seeking permission to produce certified copy of the entry of relevant register regarding institution of Mukhbari application in the D.C. Office, Gujranwala. This copy was obtained on 3rd of March, 1988. The authenticity and genuineness of this copy was challenged by the opposite parties on the plea that this entry must have been manipulated later on, otherwise, Muhammad Jamil and others would have produced this register before the Notified Officer in order to controvert the report of Ahlmad of D.C. Office produced during the proceedings. There is much weight in this submission. The report of the Ahlmad produced during the proceedings was neither challenged then nor the said report was controverted in the writ petition filed in 1986. The copy procured in the year 1988 as such cannot be allowed to be relied upon in the circumstances noted above. The perusal of the order sheet shows that one Mukhbari application was presented to D.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala on 30-3-1974 on which office report was called for on 16th of May, 1974. On 16th May, 1974, the order passed was that "Case called. Out. Petitioner is present who is directed to file copy of RL-II by the next date of hearing and matter is adjourned to 27-6-1974". The appearance of single petitioner was noted also for the next two dates i,e, 27-6-1974 and 31-6-1974 and thereafter on various dates none appeared when ultimately the application was consigned to record for want of appearance and evidence on 28-8-1976. A bare perusal of this order sheet and the entries of Fard Talbana and of title of the case indicate that this application was filed by Zubaida Begum daughter of Muzaffar Ali, singly against Hashmal, etc. Sons of Ghaseeta which application was then utilised by adding other persons as petitioners and respondents and by adding general and vague assertions with regard to the allotments obtained by various persons in various districts of three Provinces. These findings of fact as recorded by a competent officer, have the support of the record and as inferences have been reasonably drawn on the material available on record, the same cannot be substituted in extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, as regards A allotments obtained against the claim of Chand Bibi, the Mukhbari application of Muhammad Jamil and others was not competent as the information had already been laid in the year 1967 by Malik Muhammad Hussain and proceedings thereon were also pending. These petitioners cannot claim the status of Mukhbar for the same reasons as apply to the Mukhbari application of Muhammad Siddique and otheRs,
13. It is true that on recording the finding that Mukhbari application of Jamil, etc. Was bogus one, the proceedings should have been filed and the Notified Officer could not proceed further to cancel the allotments made in the name of the three allottees, but this Court need not go into this question as none has assailed that part of the order cancelling the allotments. Notwithstanding the above-stated position of Jamil, etc. The petitioners are not entitled to claim status of "informer" and seek allotment of the cancelled land. In the writ petition against the allotment of Sadaqat All Khan respondents, nothing particular was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as he assailed mainly: (i) the allotments obtained by Abdul Majid and others and (ii) the right of Muhammad Siddique and others the informers to receive allotment of the land after cancellation and resumption of the land from the above-named allottees.
14. The fording recorded in the impugned order dated 28-12-1985 dismissing the joint Mukhbari application as against this respondent is that, "taking the first allotment as 202229 P.I.Us. And the allotment in village Nokey to the extent of 6697 units against another Claim No, 7222, there were still 9074 P.I.Us. Left to be satisfied anywhere in Pakistan. There is no proof of the record that in village Bhakhi, allotment of more than these units was obtained or still exists." The other reason given is that the petitioners, joint Mukhbari petition cannot be considered a Mukhbari petition in the eye of law and that they have miserably failed to establish the excess allotment in village Bhakhi.
15. These findings have not been controverted before me. The list of mutations Annexure 'D' giving particulars of purchasers under Land Reforms does not establish the factum of excess allotment.
Be that as it may, the joint Mukhbari petition has been held to be bogus one and as such on the basis of such a manipulated petition, no indulgence from legal forums and Courts can be claimed.
' For the reasons given above, the three petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. W.P.No 31-R/86 (Abdul Majid v. Addl. Commissioner. Etc.)
' Abdul Majid and others seek quashment of the order dated 29-12-1985 enabling them to retain the land got allotted by them in village Kot Lakha Singh, Bhedankhani, Mull Bajwa, Siraj, Khanowal, Lohan, Pakhoki, Ghuss, Narowal Khan, Negwal, Marlwar, Mahmood Booti, Amar Sadhu, Chakwal and Bhera. The land got allotted in the name of Chand Bibi against her claim in other villages has been disclaimed by them.
16. The case of Abdul Majid, etc. Heirs of Chand Bibi is that Chand Bibi died on 18-5-1967; that the mutations sanctioned in Bhalwal and other places showing death of Mst. Chand Bibi at some later date or marking presence of Chand Bibi were manipulated by other persons who illegally or fraudulently had obtained these allotments; that they have no concern with these mutations and allotments; that they had obtained allotments against their valid claim in the following villages to the extent mentioned against each village.
1. Kot Lakha Singh, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. 4192
2. Khanowal 100
3. Pakhoki 250
4. Mull Bajwa 485
5. Lohan 251
6. Siraj 503
7. Nagwal, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot 369
8. Marlwar. 200 and not 620 units ' So rural land equivalent to 6350 units was statedly allotted as against 7474 units.
17. As regards urban claim the position taken by petitioners is that they had obtained allotment only in urban area of Chakwal, Mehmood Booti and Amar Sadhu, Tehsil and District Lahore, to the extent of 414, 230, 230 = 874 P.I.Us.
18. On merits learned counsel asserted that Mukhbari application of Muhammad Siddique and others was dismissed on 4-6-1981 being incompetent having been filed against a dead person and the said order was not interfered with in the Constitution petition filed by Muhammad Siddique as the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the said order of dismissal dated 16-5-1982 still holds the field as C.P.S.L.A.No, 674/82 filed to assail the said order by Muhammad Siddique and others was got dismissed as infructuous on 19th July, 1988. Learned counsel argued that no proceeding as such in the Mukhbari application of Muhammad Siddique, etc. Could be held and as such the Notified Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the orders of allotment made allotting the land in favour of the petitioners against the claim of Chand Bibi. Next it was contended that Settlement Authorities have no jurisdiction to reduce the entitlement/claim verified by the claim authorities and as such the petitioners who are legal representatives of Chand Bibi are entitled to retain allotment made to the extent of entitlement certificate issued by the Central Record Office and the claims verified by the Claims Officer. As regards the claim of other set of Mukhbars, Muhammad Jamil, etc. Learned counsel for the reasons recorded in impugned order, justified the rejection of the said Mukhbari application.
19. Now the contentions of Abdul Majid and others petitioners may be scrutinised. The Notified Officer has held that Abdul Majid and others are entitled to retain land to the extent of 1/5th share of Mst. Chand Bibi i,e, 1212 units of rural land and 170 units of urban land as Mst. Chand Bibi was entitled to inherit 1/5th share only in the estate of Alif Khan. While recording this fmding the Notified Officer in exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act has reduced the verified claim in respect of rural and urban land abandoned in India. This, it is well-established, cannot legally be done by the Notified Officer as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. Nazar Khan and others (1983 SCM R 1252). It was observed that allegation before the Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the original claimant did .Not migrate to Pakistan and that the claim was verified through fraud related to registration of . Claim under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, the Settlement Authorities were incompetent to deal with this question under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and resultantly leave to appeal was refused and the order passed by the High Court was not interfered with. It will be pertinent to note that the claim in respect of the land abandoned in the urban areas of Ferozepur Jhirka was verified by the Claims Officer (Land) Lahore, in the name of Mst. Chand Bibi as sole heir of Amrao Khan deceased. The rural land was verified on the basis of entries contained in the special Jamabandi received from India and inheritance Mutation No, 5 in the name of Mst. Chand Bibi was sanctioned on 5-10-1957 in the name of Mst. Chand Bibi daughter of Alif Khan as relating to inheritance of Mst. Chando. This order was appealed against by Mst. Chand Bibi claiming to be the sole heir of Chando and was accepted by the then Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Narowal, vide order dated 14-4-1958 with the observation noted in one of the paras. Above. These orders thus attained finality and were not challenged for all these yeaRs, The orders passed in respect of claim under the Claims Registration Act, 1956, verifying and recognising the right of Mst. Chand Bibi as sole heir could not be set at naught by the Notified Officer in proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the C Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Moreover, as has been discussed while dealing with the writ petitions of Muhammad Siddiq, etc. And Muhammad Jamil, etc. These petitioners cannot claim the status of informers and their applications if are dismissed as not maintainable no jurisdiction will remain with the Notified Officer to cancel the allotment obtained by Abdul Majid and others against the verified entitlement claim of Mst. Chand Bibi.
20. The net result of the above discussion is that Abdul Majid and others, petitioners, are entitled to retain the land got allotted by them as is being accepted and represented by them and the impugned order reducing the entitlement of Mst. Chand Bibi and cancelling the 'land from their names holding the same to be in excess of the entitlement is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same is hereby quashed. The net result of the findings recorded above is that the writ petition of Abdul Majid and others (W.P.No, 31-R/86) succeeds while other writ petitions filed by Muhammad Siddiq, etc. And Muhammad Jamil, etc. Stand dismissed with costs.