The property in dispute is a part of Khasra No. 3981/731/2/3, situate within the Municipal Limits of Jhelum. The question is as to what is its nature, namely, whether it it an agricultural land or an urban area and further whether it was included in plot No. B-II-I-S-36, which was purchased through an open auction on 11-1-1962 by Soofi Muhammad Din, respondent No. 2.
2. The facts which form the background are that the Khasra number in dispute was allotted on 2- 10-59 in favour of one Abdullah son of Khaliq. As the said Abdullah had obtained allotment in excess. Of his entitlement, the said Kbasra number was cancelled from his name and it was subsequently confirmed in favour of Muhammad Zabeer Siddiqi son of Abdul Latif on 24-3-1965 along with some other area. The said Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi sold the Khasra number in dispute in favour of Ahmad Din, petitioner No. 1, vide registered deed dated 17-6-1965. Shortly thereafter, on 26-7-1965 Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi filed an apple- cation before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Laud) through Riaz Ahmad, Mukhtar-i-Khas, requesting for cancellation of allotment of land, measuring 1 kanal 18 marlos, on the plea that the aforementioned area. Being "gher mumkin" path was wrongly confirmed to him, which may be cancelled and some alternate available land, be given instead. The D. S. C. (L) recorded the statement of Riaz Ahmad, Furthermore, Gl---ulam Rasul Patwari, Jhelum, reported on 18-6-1965 that Khasras Nos. 2584/733, 3981/731/2/3 (Khasra number in dispute) 3987/735 and 3464/1, measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas be cancelled and some alternate available land be given. By his order dated 23-9-1965 the Addl. S. C.
(L) passed an order in the following terms 1n pursuance of the said order, the D. S. C. (L) vide his order--dated 23-11-1965 cancelled the allotment, inter-alia, of Khasra Nos. 3981/731/2/3 and other Khasra numbers, in compliance with the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) dated 23-9-1965, and confirmed other available land in favour of Muhammad Zabeer Siddiqi.
3. Abmad Din, petitioner No. 1 herein, being the vendee of Khasra Nos. 3981/731/2/3, filed an appeal against the said order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Jhelum. During these proceedings Soofi Muhammad Din, respondent No 2 herein, filed an application for being impleaded as a party, on the plea that the land bearing Kbasra No. 3981/731/2/3 was a part of plot No. B-II-I-S-36, which was purchased by him in an open auction on 11-i-1962 for a sum of Rs. 18,000.
The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, did not accede to this prayer, on the ground that the area in dispute was not a part of Plot No. B-II-I-S-36 and, therefore, respondent No. 2 had no locus standi. He further held that Khasra No. 3981/731/2/3 had wrongly been cancelled from the allotment of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi and the same should be restored, with the result that the sale of the aforementioned khasra number in favour of Ahmad Din petitioner would remain intact. It was, however, directed that some other land equivalent to the units of land pertaining to Khasra No. 3931/731/2/3 should be cancelled from the name of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi. The appeal was disposed of in the above terms by the learned Additional Settle--ment Commissioner (L) vide his order dated 13-1f-1969.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Soofi Muhammad Din filed a revision petition against it, which ultimately was entrusted for disposal to Khawaja Mabmood Sadiq, Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan. He held that the area in dispute was in fact included in plot No. B-II-I-S-36, which was purchased by respondent No. 2 in open auction. Hence respondent No. 2 did have a locus standi in the matter and could file a revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner. As regards the second question about the nature of the land, the learned Settlement Commissioner held that the same was urban property and could not be allotted in favour of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi and was rightly included for disposal in auction by the D. S. C. (Urban), Jhelum. He accordingly, accepted the revision petition, cancelled the allotment of Khasra No. 3981/731/2/3 from the name of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi, with the consequence that the subsequent transaction of sale of this area in favour of petitioner No. 1 was also cancelled and the auction of the said khasra number as part of the plot in favour of respondent No. 2 was upheld. The revision petition was disposed of in the above terms, vide order dated 12-5-1971.
5. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to show that the findings recorded by the learned Settlement Commis--sioner on the above points were incorrect, while the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 drew attention to the relevant circumstances which supported his conclusion.
6. I observe that the question whether the area in dispute was included in the plot sold to respondent No. 2 by auction on 11-1-196? Is~ question of fact and the finding recorded on this question of fact `t is not liable to be ordinarily interfered with. The learned Settlement Com-- missioner relied upon the report of the Patwari, who also made a statement before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 12-3-1969, wherein he stated that the measurements on the spot revealed that the khasra number in dispute was included in plot No. B-II-I-S-36. He also relied upon a copy of the entry from C. S. I. V. Register maintained by the B Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum and consequently his finding of fact is based on relevant material and there is no ground to interfere with it.
7. As regards the nature of the land, it is to be noted that the property is situate within the Municipal limits, Jhelum and lies between the Old G. T. Road and the Islamia School Road and was used for stacking timber. The entire area around it is a built-up area and the property was never used as agricultural land. It may also be mentioned that the relevant special Jamabandi (copy attached as Annexure 12-11 with the written statement) describes the nature of the land as Banjar Qadeem. It is now established law that the nature of the property, as t whether it is land or not, depends upon the direct purpose for whir the property was occupied by the owner at the time of Independence, i. e. before 15-8-1947. See Nafeesa Bano and others v. Chief Settlement C Commissioner (PLD 1969 Lab. 480 In the relevant special Jamabandi it is mentioned that the property was Banjar Qadeem.
It is quite clear that before the Partition the khasra number in question was not land within the meaning o section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and hence it could not be allotted to Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqui, petitioner No. 2.
8. No ground for interference against the order dated 12-5-1971 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner is made out. The result is that this Writ Petition fails and is hereby rejected, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.