' The petitioner has assailed through this Constitutional petition order dated 6-12-1992 passed by Ch. Talib Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore whereby he accepted the miscellaneous application of respondent No,1 for allotment of agricultural land against her verified claim of 1349 P.I. Units.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, I is refugee from Jammu and Kashmir. She filed Claim Form No,2152/AJK for her abandoned agricultural land and it was verified on 28-2-1979 where after Central Record Office issued entitlement certificate for 1349 rural P.I. Units on the Q.P.R.
Form filed by her on 4-4-1979. On the basis of said entitlement certificate, the petitioner requested for allotment of any available rural agricultural land against her pending units. Her application was examined by the Settlement Department and ultimately reported that land could not be allotted against entitlement certificate issued on 4-4-1979 as the allotment was banned by the Government in 1973 and Settlement Laws having been repealed with effect from 1-7-1974, the only remedy available to respondent No,1 was to get cash compensation against her entitlement.
3. Thereafter respondent No,1 filed an application for allotment of agricultural land against her verified claim treating her case as pending within the meaning of section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Lahore who vide impugned order dated 6-12- 1992 held that it was a case of hardship of an old lady. The case falls within the above said provision and as such she was held entitled to the allotment of rural agricultural land against her entitlement certificate of 1349 P.I. Units in any one of the districts reserved for Jammu and Kashmir refugees. The Department was accordingly directed to allot available rural agricultural land to her within three months from the date of moving application by her.
3. Province of the Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore has filed this petition on the ground that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed mainly on the ground that no allotment could be made after repeal of the Settlement laws by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act (XIV of 1975) as the claim of the petitioner for allotment of land was not pending. Learned counsel has referred to section 2(2) of the said Act which provides as under: "Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such Officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the Officers as aforesaid."
4. According to the above said provision, allotment could only be made on the basis of a pending case. The present case not being a pending case on 1-7-1974 no allotment could be made in favour of respondent No, 1 .
5. This provision of law was considered in depth in case reported as Syed All Ibne Muhammad and others v. Province of Punjab, Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing through Member, Board of Revenue 1988 SCM R 1789 wherein issuance of entitlement certificate was delayed despite specific direction of High Court and for no fault of the claimants. Meanwhile Evacuee Laws were repealed and the allotments stood banned. Learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition and directed the authorities to allot available land to the petitioners, in that case, in lieu of their verified claim as Repealing Act itself provided for disposal of pending cases in accordance with repealed law, holding that the petitioners' case for purposes of allotment remained pending on account of one thing or other to be done by Authorities and the petitioners should not suffer for their inaction. This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in an appeal before a Division Bench, which came to the conclusion that pending proceedings in respect of issuance of entitlement certificate could not be equated with allotment proceedings because under Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme it was only after a claimant's entitlement had been verified and determined on the entitlement certificate that he became eligible for allotment of land in satisfaction thereof. As no provision of law existed obliging Settlement Authorities to make allotment to appellants in respect of their entitlement certificate after the repeal of Act on 1-7-1974, the direction to make allotment was not sanctioned by law. View of Division Bench was upheld by Supreme Court and appeal was dismissed.
6. In the present case claim of respondent No,1 was decided on 28-2-1979 and the entitlement certificate was issued on 4-4-1979. Admittedly the claim of the respondent for allotment of land was not pending at the time of repeal of the Settlement laws, i,e, 1-7-1974. The only remedy left for the respondent in the circumstance is to apply for cash compensation for which the Settlement Authorities are already ready to, make payment against her entitlement.
7. It may further be observed that respondent No,1 is not in possession of any evacuee land nor any property was allotted to her temporarily on Gazara Scheme. I have gone through the application submitted by her before respondent No,2. There is no mention whatsoever about the allotment of any agricultural land to her on temporarily basis. Respondent No,2 has erroneously observed in the impugned order that some property as Guara allowance was allotted, to respondent No,1. Neither any order with regard to allotment as Gazara allowance was placed on the record nor it was alleged in the application and in case the said temporary allotment was cancelled, no particular date, year or place has been mentioned anywhere in the record. If at all any such allotment was made to her and was cancelled, she could have challenged the same on the ground that her claim was still pending verification. Neither she has made any assertion in this behalf in her application before respondent No,2 nor any material has been placed on record to indicate that any temporary allotment was made in her favour pending verification of her claim. The case of respondent No,1 cannot be said to be pending one within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act XIV of 1975, therefore, after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws, she was not entitled to any allotment and respondent No,2 has erred in law while treating her case as pending one. The impugned order is thus not maintainable.
' For the above reasons, the impugned order is declared illegal and is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.