This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ,is directed against order dated 16-2-1977 passed by the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land), Gujranwala exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioners made an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 sometime in 1977 which was decided by the learned Addl.
Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 16-2-1977. It was held by him that there was no excessive allotment obtained by the respondents in Village Bhakhrewali Kalan in that it was not 7131 units but 3699 units against R.L. II No. 403 and if this point be taken into consideration the allotment of respondents in Village Jajoke is not in excess of the entitlement. The entitlement of the respondents is admittedly 18481 P.I. Units.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the finding vide the impugned order that there was no excess allotment obtained by respondents is erroneous and has been reached at by misreading of record.
4. The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the aforementioned finding is in conflict with the finding of the then learned Settlement Commissioner
(Land) also exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab given vide his order dated 9-4-1974 which was confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 23-10-1975 delivered in Writ Petition No. 780-R of 1975 and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1017 of 1975.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not competent as the application made by them before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act itself had been filed sometime in 1977 whereas the provisions of law under which such an application could be made had ceased to exist on account of Repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 with effect from 30th of June, 1974. It was urged that the petitioners have no locus, standi in the matter and their writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the merit of the case the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that there is no excess allotment obtained by the respondents in Village Jajoke as is apparent from a comparative statement filed by the counsel today. In this context the learned counsel has submitted that the units shown allotted to the respondents in Village Bhakhrewali as 7133 in the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 9-4-1974 was on account of an incorrect reading of the record in that the land allotted actually in that village was equivalent to 3699 units which is apparent from Annexure R/2 to the written statement and which has been duly taken notice of by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert the document Annexure R/2 in any manner and he only said that the document is contrary to the averments of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 9-4-1974.
8. Having given consideration to the controversy I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents has great force. It has been rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having made the application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner in 1977 had at that point of time no legal right to move such an application and, therefore, the dismissal of the application by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner though on merits is also to be taken as dismissal of the application on account of its having been filed beyond the date by which it could be filed viz. 30th of June, 1974.
9. In the above context of the matter I am also of the view that the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution as they have no subsisting right or legal entitlement qua the land in dispute and thus their present Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
10. Apart altogether from the above position it may also be observed that the finding of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 17-2-1977 also appears to be correct in view of the document Annexure R/2 which has in no manner been proved or shown to be discrepant in any manner. It may also be observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners when confronted with this position qua the finding of the Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order could -not controvert on facts and only attempted to take shelter behind the earlier order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which is patently shown to be in disregard of the aforementioned documentary evidence. It may also be pointed out that vide the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in CPSLA No. 1017 of 1975 it has also been observed as under:-- "However, we-do not wish to express any further opinion in the matter, as we were informed by Mr. Khalilur Rehman that a fresh notice had since been received by the petitioners on 24-1-1976 from the Central Record Office for re-verification of some of the items of the claims of Muhammad Zafar Hussain and Mst. Wazir Begum. The petitioners would accordingly have a further opportunity of getting the matter fully examined as to the correct evaluation of the claims in dispute."
The above observation in the order of the Supreme Court also shows that there was some re- verification of the items of claims/allotment of land which were still under examination and, therefore, if any examination subsequent to the orders which culminated in the first round of litigation reveals that there has been a misreading of the record the same could be rectified which appears to have been done by the learned Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
However, the parties shall bear their own costs.