' Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition that the petitioner filed claim form under section 5 of the Registration of Claims of Displaced Persons Act, 1956 which was dismissed by the Claims Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, he assailed this order before this Court in Writ Petition No,398-R of 1995 which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Claims Commissioner. In consequence of the remand order passed by this Court, the Claims Commissioner again dismissed the claim of the petitioner without recording any evidence. This order was again challenged in Writ Petition No,1431-R of 1976 on the ground that the Claims Commissioner did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence to substantiate his claim but instead of fixing the case for evidence he only heard the arguments and disposed of the case summarily. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 28-1-1979 and.
The case was remanded after making certain observations. In consequence of the remand order, the case was entrusted to Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Claims Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha who - vide his order, dated 28-6-1984 dismissed the claim of the petitioner, hence this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is outcome of misreading of evidence.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the Department has supported the impugned order and contended that the learned Claims Commissioner after discussing the evidence produced by the petitioner reached to a conclusion which is quite in accordance with laW and no illegality whatsoever has been committed by him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Petitioner produced as many as five witnesses and also appeared himself in support of his claim.
He also tendered certain documents in his evidence. The evidence recorded by the learned Claims Commissioner has not-been placed on record. This petition was filed in 1985 and through C.M. No,4 of 1999, petitioner requested for summoning the record from the Settlement Department. This application was opposed by the learned counsel for the Settlement Department and was dismissed on 25-2-2000 mainly on the ground that the writ petition was filed without appending the relevant record and under the law, the petitioner has to prove the case independently.
However, the material available on record shows that Retired Captain Elahi Bakhsh P.W.1 deposed that he was posted in 1945 at Poona and remained there till partition of the country. During his posting, he visited the hotel comprising 9/10 rooms which was constructed over a Government land. Ghulam Muhammad petitioner was running this hotel. In the estimation of the witness this hotel would fetch Rs,700/800 per month if rented out. P.W.2 Jehan Khan was an employee with Ghulam Muhammad petitioner from 1945 to 1946. Qazi Murid Ahmad while appearing P.W.3 deposed that he did not see this hotel but got this information from his brother Sub. Major Muhammad Jalal deceased who was stated to be posted at Poona. P.W.4 Sher Muhammad is stated to be posted at Poona as a Military Personnel. P.W.5 Fazal Haq also remained as private employee under the petitioner.
6. There is lot of contradiction in the statement of the witnesses produced by the petitioner. As according to Ghulam Muhammad, the hotel was situated within the limit of Poona City and he had three hotels comprising 21 rooms besides a shop. No doubt, one of the witnesses P.W.1 Rtd. Captain Elahi Bakhsh deposed that the hotel was situated within the City of Poona but this statement has been rebutted by P.W.2 Jahan Khan who is a witness of the petitioner and was an employee of the hotel. This witness deposed that petitioner's hotel was 7/8 miles away from Poona City. Same statement was made by P.W.3 who also stated that the property was not in Poona City proper. Sher Muhammad P.W.4 also did not support the claim of Ghulam Muhammad as this witness only deposed that the hotel was located near their Poona Camp without clarifying that his camp was located within the municipal limits of Poona or outside thereof, the learned Claims Commissioner after discussing in detail the evidence produced by the petitioner arrived at a definite conclusion that the property owned by petitioner was not located within the municipal limits of Poona City.
7. According to section 2-A of Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, "property" means:-- "Any immovable property situated within the limits of Corporation, a Municipal Committee, a Notified Area Committee, a Small Town Committee, a Sanitary Committee and a Cantonment Board, as those limits existed on 15-8-1947."
8. From the above said definition it is clear that the hotel allegedly owned by the petitioner is not covered under the definition given under section 2-A of Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons)
Act, 1956. Even otherwise, the assertion of the petitioner that he had three hotels with 21 rooms has not been supported by any of his witnesses because all of them were unanimous on the point that there was one hotel being run by the petitioner, with 9/10 rooms. Petitioner's sons present in Court, on a Court question admitted that his father is resident of Mitha Tiwana, Tehsil Khushab, while P.W.1 and P.W.5 belong to Sargodha. From the perusal of the above facts and keeping in view the legal position, the petitioner failed to prove his claim and in view of the contradictory statements it cannot be said that the property was situated within the urban limits of Poona City. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order, dated 28-6- 1984 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Claims Commissioner, Sargodha. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs: