Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi v. Yar Muhammad Khan PLD 1964 Lah. 469 and Chief Administrative Officer v. Habibullah Butt PLD 1960 SC 78 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Azeem-ud-Din for Appellant. Malik Sher Bahadur for Respondent No,
1. Date of hearing 14th January 1978.
JUDMENT ' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.- The appellant was allowed a grant of Rs, 400 per month, by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, as maintenance allowance, by his order dated 6th July 1950. Later, the appellant was allotted 888 kanals of land in village Harbanspura, Lahore, on 31st May, 1951, by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab Government under no particular scheme. It is stated by the learned counsel that the allotment had been made in lieu of the refugee allowance of R. 400 as the same was discontinued thereafter. The order of allotment was conveyed to the appellant on 21st June, 1951, and he remained in possession of the land throughout.
2. In the year 1970, the Martial Law Authorities made a reference to the Settlement Commissioner for the resumption of the land in question. The matter came up before respondent No, 1 vide his order dated 30th September, 1971, cancelled and resumed the land in question. The appellant challenged that order before this Court in Writ Petition No, 917-R of 1971 but the same was dismissed on 12th February, 1973, and hence this appeal.
3. Before going into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the present appeal was not maintainable in view of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. However after perusing the relevant provisions he conceded that as no appeal was available against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, at the relevant time, the present Intra-Court appeal is not barred under the Law Reforms Ordinance. In this view of the matter the objection has no force and is not sustained.
4. As regards the merits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by this Court in Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi v. Yar Muhammad Khan (1). He also relied on section 7 of the Rehabilitation
(1) PLD 1964 Lah. 469 Act to say that as the Rehabilitation Commissioner was entitled to pass any order of allotment was valid.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite valid and in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge held that the allotment of land made in lieu of the maintenance allowance was a temporary arrangement till final rehabilitation and that the appellant could not take it as a permanent grant. He further held that if an allottee had no claim, he had no right to remain in possession of land meant only for claimants. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant could neither refer to any provision of law under which the maintenance allowance was granted or the allotment made nor could h show any other provision under which he could continue in possession. Obviously the allotment was only for a short period meant for the maintenance of the appellant before he could establish himself in Pakistan. No valid objection can, therefore, be raised against the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. The appellant is neither a claimant nor does he have any other right to hold on to the land in dispute. The same land was available for allotment to claimants under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act and the Schemes made thereunder. No provision of law permits his possession. The case cited by the learned counsel does not apply as Dr. Yar Muhammad was claimant in that case. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot come as a matter of right to this Court with a grievance that the order resuming the land was unlawful.
7. Even otherwise, the allotment in question had not been made to the appellant under any particular scheme. He was a mere licensee as held in Chief Administrative Officer v. Habibullah Butt (2). The Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities, therefore, had a right to revoke that licence and eject him from the land in question.
8. As for the question of mesne profits, it is to be noted that the appellant continued to occupy the land in question without any valid cause. It is not his case that he had abandoned the land and that the same was being cultivated by respondents 2 and 3. His contention even before us is that he is entitled to remain on the land as an allottee. No notices had been issued to respondents 2 and 3. In this view of the matter, it is the appellant who is to account for the mesne profits and not respondents 2 and 3.
' For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.
(1) PLD 1960 SC 78