This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 15-7-1982 of the Member, Board of Revenue by which he has approved the cancellation of land measuring 65 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in village Dhariwal, District Narowal from the name of Mst. Irshad Bibi.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that Jamal Shah husband of Mst. Irshad Bibi respondent No.4 was allotted land to the extent of 92 Kanals, 8 Marlas in Village Gulabpura, Tehsil and District Gujranwala as against his Claim No.14092/104 and thereafter sold the said allotment on 28-9-1962 in favour of Sethi Mills. The disputed land was allotted in favour of Mst.
Irshad Bibi respondent No.4, wife of Jamal Shah, and after his death proprietary rights were granted in favour of the allottee who in turn sold the land to the petitioner. A report was submitted on 14-7- 1982 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) recommending the cancellation of the disputed land which was approved by order dated 15-7-1982 of the Member, Board of Revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 Mst. Irshad Bibi being A.J. & K refugee was first allotted the disputed land for maintenance as temporary allottee and thereafter the same was sold to her as is evident from letter No. A.C.N. 816, dated 10-12-1981 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and that the same could not be cancelled. It is submitted that the allottee has acquired proprietary rights in accordance with the Government Policy after depositing the purchase price into the Government Treasury. It is next submitted that the husband of Irshad Bibi was allotted land as against his claim while the disputed land was allotted to Mst.
Irshad Bibi as Jammu and Kashmir refugee and in this way there was no question of double allotment and consequently the order of cancellation is without any lawful authority. The learned counsel contended that there is no jurisdiction vested in the respondents to auction the land after its cancellation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Settlement Department has not been able to controvert the pleas of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the respondent-Member Board of Revenue did not possess any jurisdiction over the land in dispute which has been allotted to Mst. Irshad Bibi Jammu and Kashmir refugee and of which she has acquired proprietary rights. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 391) that application under sections 10 and 11 is not maintainable in respect of the property allotted for maintenance as the same has been purchased by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government. Even otherwise Mst.
Irshad Bibi obtained the proprietary rights and sold land in question in favour of the petitioner.
There was no earthly reason for the respondents to have cancelled the land in an arbitrary manner and without considering the legal aspect of the case. The land in question was rightly allotted to Mst. Irshad Bibi which consequently was sold to the present petitioner.
Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 15-7-1982 cancelling the land in dispute from the name of respondent No.4 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There is, however, not order as to costs.