The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.11.1996 passed by the Notified Officer/Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Bhakkar in terms of which the land subject matter of this petition was allotted to Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 pursuant to the judgment of the August Supreme Court.
2. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of land in question, the predecessor' in-interest of Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 and a claimant filed Civil Petition No, 54-L/91 before the August Supreme Court of Pakistan, the same was dismissed as time barred with the observation that "the petitioners may seek some other available land and in this way it will be treated as pending case for allotment", on the basis of the said judgment, the Deputy Commissioner Sargodha, on being presented with an application of the afore-referred claimant, referred the matter to the concerned Notified Officer, another application was made seeking transfer of their pending units transferred to Village Kararikot which application was allowed and ultimately, the Notified Officer/Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Bhakkar, vide the impugned order, transferred the area measuring 629 kanals situated in Village Dullewala, Tehsil Darya Khan and Khasra No, 2009 measuring 78 kanals and Khasra No, 2010 measuring 108 kanals 5 marlas in Village Karari Kot, Tehsil & District Bhakkar and confirmed the same in their names as an evacuee land. Out of the afore-referred land Khasra No, 2009 and Khasra No, 2010, according to the petitioners, belonged to the Central Government, was in possession of the Deputy Commissioner on its behalf and was being used as camping ground for Army and could not have been allotted to the respondents. They challenged the allotment order before the Commissioner Sargodha Division and the Additional Commissioner Sargodha vide order dated 19.12.1997 dismissed the same. Hence this petition.
3. During the pendency of this petition, petitioners filed CM No, 1622/2002 for placing on record the report dated 19.2.2001 from the Deputy Commissioner Bhakkar which is to the effect that "Mian Muhammad Jamil, Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, during the inspection of the office of the Deputy Commissioner,, Bhakkar, on 16th and 17th November, 2000, observed that Sh. Muhammad Arshad, the then Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Bhakkar vide his order dated 15.11.1996 allotted state land measuring 815 kanals 5 marlas (Dullewala 629 kanals and Kararikot 186 kanals 5 marlas) to Mst. GuldaSta Begum etc. under their verified claims against the rules/regulations and instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab. It was further stated in the said report that the said land had been purchased by the Provincial Government in terms of Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Act, 1975 (Act XIV of. 1975) and the price having been paid by the Provincial Government it becomes the property of the said Government and it has to be shown accordingly in the revenue record.
4. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as under :-- (i)That the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land subject matter of this petition under Temporary Cultivation Scheme and it being the property of the Provincial Government, could not have been allotted to an evacuee claimant; (ii)That initially this Constitutional petition was filed under the misconception that the land in question was owned by the Federal Government but having come to know that it had been purchased by the Provincial Government and in view of the Deputy Commissioner Bhakkar's report dated 19.2.2001 placed on record through CM No, 1622/2002 the factual position has been made clear a the land was not available with the Notified Officer for its allotment to the predecessor-in- interest of Respondents Nos, 4 to 9, the impugned order is not sustainable in law;
(iii) That Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 can agitate their claim for allotment in terms of August Supreme Court judgment before the appropriate forum and only the land available as evacuee land in terms of para 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme could be allotted to them and not the land which has been allotted through the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 defended the impugned order by submitting that the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 had rightly been allotted the land; that the land in question was part of the land purchased by the Provincial Government from the Central Government and that it could be allotted to the evacuee claimant and no exception can be taken to it.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate General, while defending the impugned order, submitted that the land had been purchased by the Provincial Government and was being kept for allotment to evacuee claimants and the impugned order is unexceptionable. He further contended that the petitioners have no vested right to claim the said land. They were merely allottees under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme for two years and after the expiry of these two years, their possession is un-authorized.
7. Heard.
8. Although in the body of the petition, it was averred that the land subject-matter of this petition belonged to the Central Government yet it is now conceded before this Court that this land was purchased by the Provincial Government and was the property of the Provincial Government when it was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of Respondents Nos, 4 to 9 in satisfaction of their non- satisfied claim under the evacuee laws. The precise contention of petitioners' learned counsel before this Court is this land, not being an evacuee land, could not have been allotted to satisfy an evacuee claim. The stand taken by the respondent Provincial Government in the comments submitted by Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner Bhakkar is given in Para 1 of the same which is as under: It is incorrect the disputed land does not belong to the Ministry of Defence. As per current record of rights the disputed land belongs to the Provincial Government because the Provincial Government purchased such land from Central Government for allotment of pending claim holders under Rehabilitation Act vice Board of Revenue Punjab Colonies Department Letter No, 1021-88/781/LR dated 2.5.1988".
The letter to which reference has been made above, has been placed on record on Court direction and makes an instructive reading which is reproduced below:-- "No, 1021-88/780-LR(II) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated the 2nd May, 1988.
From: The Board of Revenue, Punjab.
To: 1.All Commissioners in the Punjab.
2.All Deputy Commissioners/Settlement Officers in the Punjab.
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF EVACUEE PROPERTY BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MALIK, MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE.
MEMORANDUM: Board of Revenue's Memorandum No, 5372-85/825-CSI; dated the 13th March, 1986, stated that the residuary evacuee property having been sold to the Provincial Government by the Central Government as required under Section 3 of the Repealed Act, 1975 (Act 14 of 1975) and the price having since been paid by the Provincial Government, it became the property of the latter Government. Consequently, this land should now be shown under the ownership of the Provincial Government instead of the Central Government, in the Record of Rights with the description.
This description was to be discarded in the next edition of record of Rights.
2. However, on reconsideration it is felt that the said land is to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the two schemes framed under the repealed Act of 1975 (Act 14 of 1975).
Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish this land from the other Provincial Government's lands till claims under the schemes are finally exhausted.
3. It is, therefore, directed that in respect of all such residuary evacuee properties as a note should be recorded in the remarks column of the current . Register Haqdaran Zamin by entering the words.
As regards the next revised edition of the Register Haqdaran Zamin the words "Central Government" in the ownership column should be substituted by the words. and such entries will continue till further orders.
4. A strict compliance of the above instructions may kindly be ensured under confirmation to this office at the earliest.
Sd/- (MIAN EHSANUL HAQ) SECRETARY (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB."
9.No challenge is being thrown to evacuee claim of predecessor-ininterest of Respondents Nos, 4 to 9. Admittedly, the land in question was allotted vide the imp'igned order pursuant to the observation of the August Supreme Court in Civil Petition No, 54-L/91. The only objection of petitioners was that this land could not have been allotted under the evacuee scheme. The reference of petitioners' learned counsel to para 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme is of no avail as much water has flown since the passage of the afore-referred scheme and after the Repeal Act, 1975, the matters have to be dealt with in terms thereof. Section 3 of the Repealed Act, 1975 (Act 14 of 1975), inter alia, stipulates as under: "29. Right to be given in accordance with entries in Jamabandis.--Rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant in accordance with the entries in the special Jamabandis received from the prescribed area of India. Classification of evacuee land should be taken into account according to the entries in the variations in the classification of soil should be ignored. If any hardship is caused by the application of this rule in individual cases a reference should be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan. [Reference former Punjab Government Memorandum No, 8553-R(L), dated 2nd September, 1950]".
10. The Provincial Government, in terms of Para 2 of the letter dated 2nd May, 1988, has allotted the land through its Notified Officer and no exception can be taken to it. Even otherwise, petitioners, who are in cultivating possession on a temporary cultivation scheme, cannot make a grievance against the allotment of the said land under a permanent scheme. In Khuda Bakhsh vs. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and 3 others (1981 SCM R 1134), the August Supreme Court, at page 1135, quoted with approval a judgment of this Court wherein it was held as under: "Therefore, I am clear in my mind that temporary leases granted to any person can be terminated even before the expiry of the lease period if the land is required for any permanent scheme or for any public purpose. Similarly, a person whose land has already been included in the Schedule for allotment on permanent basis or whose land has been allotted to any other person under permanent scheme, cannot claim the acquisition of proprietary rights on the basis of the letter dated 3rd September, 1979. On the view I have taken I am supported by the judgment of this Court dated 31.3.1976 in Writ Petition No, 414 of 1970."
11.Although petitioner had no vested right yet he has been prolonging his possession of the land initially by filing a civil suit and then this petition to the utter dismay of the respondent allottees under a permanent scheme.
12.For what has been discussed above I do not see any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.