' The dispute relates to three Quarters in possession of respondents M/s. Faml Din, Ibrahim and Noor which have been transferred to them in revision vide order dated 17-2-1977 of Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The area of these Quarters is 15 Marlas. Petitioner Atta-ul-Haq and after his death his legal heirs are claiming this as part of the agricultural land transferred to them while the respondents were claiming this as J&K refugees on the basis of their possession.
2. The case has been heard at length and the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me to all documents attached with the writ petition one by one. The precise contention of the petitioner is that the disputed Quarters are part of Khasra Nos.2689/608, 630, 638 and 639 measuring about 8 Kanals 11 Marlas. Reliance is placed on RL 11 Khata No,1 Mouza Mian Pura, District Sialkot Annexure A, Register Haqdaran relating to the year 1943-44 of the same Mouza 'B', Khasra Girdawari relating to the years 1944 to 1949 'D', Aks Shajra of the year 1947 'E', year is not mentioned on this document but it is stated as such by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Aks Shajra of the year 1970 7, and copy of Parcha Khatoni Annexure 'G'. Most of these documents tend to show that the Khasra number mentioned above is Chahi.
3. Reliance is also placed on an uncertified copy of the order dated 12-6-1965 of the District Judge/Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot whereby revision petition of Mst. Nusrat Khanam against the present petitioner was rejected. The learned counsel wants to show that the said lady was claiming these three Quarters from the petitioner and her claim was finally rejected. At this stage it is pertinent to point out that the present respondents were not party to this order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 12-6-1965 nor there is any positive finding that the property in dispute was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner is falsified from para. No,2 of the said order which shows that "The grievance of Mst. Nusrat Khanam is that the land surrounding the property transferred to her has been allotted to Attaul Haq respondent as agricultural land with the result that the surrounding land is being ploughed right up to the walls of the house transferred to her. So in her application she demanded that she should be transferred three times the plinth area in accordance with the provision of the Settlement Scheme No,5. "In this order there is not the slightest mention of the Quarters in dispute in the possession of respondents as J & K refugee. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, untenable as far as the order dated 12-6-1965 is concerned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 11-5-1973 passed by Magistrate Ist Class, Sialkot whereby respondents alongwith others were sentenced to undergo R.I. For three months each under section 447, P.P.C. And to undergo R.I. For one year each under section 448, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,1,000 each in default to pay the fine to undergo S.I. For one year each. The present respondents filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sialkot and the same was decided in terms of compromise on 19-7-1973. The respondents were discharged from their bail bonds. The order dated 11-5-1973 of Magistrate Ist Class and 19-7-1973 of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot are Annexure 'G' and 'K' on the present file. A certified copy of the compromise is placed on the file as Annexure 'I,' which is an undertaking on behalf of respondents that they have abandoned the possession of the property in question and in future there will be no litigation. As to this document one of the legal heirs of Attaul Haq stated before me in the Court that the respondents are still in possession of the disputed property. This statement is made by Khan Hassan Zia on whom alongwith others, other property has been devolved after the death of the petitioner Attaul Haq.
5. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 22-5-1968 Annexure 'M' rejected the KNCH Foom of the respondents in the following manner:--- "Mst. Nusrat Khanam claimed three times the plinth area of the building from the land surrounding thereto alongwith the proposed structure shown in Red lines in the plan Exh. PC'. By his order dated 2-12-1963, Ch. Arif Mahmood, D.S.C. Declined to accept her claim and held that the whole property with exception of Khasra Nos.2686/606 to 611 (Residential Building No,1/1650-1651) had since been transferred to Khan Ataul Haq Khan by the Revenue Authorities under Schedule IV."
' From this order of D.S.C. It is abundantly clear that the disputed Quarters are the residential building and was not transferred to the petitioner Ataul Haq. As the forms of the respondents were rejected by D.S.C., they filed Revision No,73 of 1968 and by order dated 17-2-1977 learned Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner transferred the disputed property comprising 15 Marlas in favour of the respondents M/s. Fatal Din, Ibrahim and Noor. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed present Constitution petition.
6. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that Atual Haq died issueless and all his property was inherited by his brother and after his death in the name of the legal heirs and one of them is Khan Hassan Zia nephew of Atual Haq, present hi the Court. Learned Settlement Commissioner while accepting the revision petition of respondents has gone into various aspects of the case and finally concluded that the respondents being in occupation of the disputed property are entitled to the transfer of the same. He has examined the contention of the petitioner as the disputed property as part and parcel of the agricultural land allotted to the petitioner but finally rejected the same.
The position emerging from facts and the order of learned Settlement Commissioner dated 17-2- 1977 is that the main bungalow (known as Chiti Kothi) was transferred to Mst. Nusrat Khanam, agricultural land has been transferred to Ataul Haq and the three Quarters transferred to the respondents area of which is about 15 Marlas.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner to make a statement in this regard but he denied this status of the respondents. When this question was asked from Khan Hassan Zia he showed his ignorance as to whether or not the respondents are J&K refugees. The fact of the matter is that the respondents are J&K refugees as is evident from the order of D.S.C. Dated 22-5-1968 where the KNCH form of each respondent along with others is mentioned Fazal Din submitted KNCH from 414, Ibrahim KNCH 544 and Noor KNCH 889. It is not necessary to mention the KNCH forms of the other applicants. The respondents filed an appeal before Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 22-5-1968 of the D.S.C. Where their forms were rejected. In para. 6 of the grounds of appeal they clearly stated that their KNCH forms were rejected. In view of this it was not possible for one of the petitioners to show ignorance about the status of respondents being. & K refugees. It has been held in PLD 1976 SC 37 "Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Bakhash and others" that the property in possession of the J&K refugee could not be transferred to any other person because the same is excluded from the compensation pool and that the same is not transferable under various provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. On this short ground this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is stated before me by Khan Hassan Zia that these Quarters existed before partition and different persons were residing as labourers to cultivate the agricultural land which was in possession of his uncle Ataul Haq, the original petitioner. I feel that this is not proved on the basis of any evidence on record. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners are not entitled to the transfer of this disputed property and as such have no locus standi to file the present petition. This therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
8. I find that the respondents had been subjected to great victimization and oppression inasmuch as they were involved in the criminal litigation. This was done only to curb the respondents from their legitimate rights as they were entitled to the transfer of the disputed property on the basis of J & K refugees and on the basis of their possession. It appears that the petitioners have gone very greedy and they do not look with countenance the settlement of J & K refugees who otherwise have legal right to the transfer of the disputed property. I have gone through the order dated 17-2- 1977 of the Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner accepting the revision petition of the respondents in respect of the disputed property and the same is unexceptionable.
9. For the aforementioned reasons the writ petition is dismissed with costs.