' The case of the petitioner is that he was a claimant displaced person having 301 PI Units to his credit, which were registered at Khata RL-II No,209 in Village Joohewali, Tehsil and District Sialkot.
The land in question was reserved in the name of the petitioner to the tune of 35 Kanals 11 Marlas on 7-1-1961. However, on 23-5-1961 a report was made thereunder that the claim of the petitioner related to mortgagee's unit and, therefore, no land could be confirmed. It was proposed that the reservation made earlier be cancelled. On 24-5-1961 the said reservation was cancelled.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this village some land was unearthed by the petitioner through his efforts at Khatas 47, 213 and 215 and these allotments were cancelled under the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 21-5-1961. The cancelled area was, however, not given to the petitioner and it was given to respondents 2 to 4 vide order dated 7-8-1961 at their Khata RL-II No,222. It is claimed that the petitioner filed a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act but it was returned after some time with the observation that the petitioner should file a revision petition.
Consequently, a revision petition was filed which was dismissed on 26-10-1971. Hence the present writ petition.
3. A perusal of the impugned order showns that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds that it was hopelessly time-barred and that the petitioner had no preferential claim vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 4, and also that he had no pending claim in this estate. It was also held that no allotment could be made on the strength of mortgagee's units.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my view, there is no force in this writ petition. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the efforts made by his client to secure allotment of some land in this village through application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act ended in failure. He did not move any application under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in the matter of filing of the revision petition. In this view of the matter, the learned Settlement Commissioner was fully justified to dismiss the revision petition as barred by time. Needless to add that the order dated 7-8-1961 was being challenged in 1977.
5. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, in any case, suo motu revisional jurisdiction should have been exercised by the learned Settlement Commissioner to undo the injustice. I am afraid, this contention is equally devoid of force. Whether or not, in the circumstances of the case, suo motu jurisdiction could be exercised was within the exclusive discretion of the Settlement Commissioner, and he having refrained from doing so, it is not for this Court in exercise of its power under Article 199 of the Constitution to declare the said failure on the part of the learned Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority. There is no doubt either that allotment could not be made to the petitioner in lieu of his mortgagee units.
The holders of mortgage units in terms of para. 7-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme were entitled to receive mortgage money by way of compensation only.
6. It was brought to my notice that the petitioner had been unnecessary bothering the contesting respondents in this case. A perusal of Khata RL-II No, 222 in the names of the contesting respondents, shows that none of the Khasra numbers originally reserved in the name of the petitioner at his Khata RL-II No, 209 has been allotted to the contesting respondents; it is altogether a different land.
7. For what has been stated above, the writ petition merits dismissal.
8. However, it is being contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the mortgagee units the petitioner has ownership units, duly verified in his name outstanding as yet, and he has not been allotted even an inch of land anywhere in Pakistan. He has been making a strenuous efforts to secure some allotment and the instant litigation was also a step towards this direction. In this view of the matter, it is directed that in case the petitioner has outstanding entitlement to his credit, the same should be satisfied by allotment of available evacuee land presently in the ownership of the Provincial Government anywhere in Punjab.
9. With these observations the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.