Law:

Section:

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: -- Imam Din, respondent, was a refugee from Hoshiarpur and in occupation of a plot measuring 10 Marlas in Jhang City. He applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No.VI on 7-3-1962. His Form bore No.2307. Without disposal of the form the plot was auctioned in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Abdul Ghani on 29-6-1970. The respondent had earlier filed an application for deletion of the plot from the list of auction which was dismissed on 27-6-1970 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the ground that his case was not covered by Settlement Scheme No.VIII. He filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner who vide his order, dated 9-3-1973 remanded the case for disposal of his form. In remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 4-1-1975 held that the respondent's form was not traceable and the copy of the report produced by the respondent signifying the entry of Form No.2307 on 7-3-1962 did not show that the delay in submitting the form had been condoned by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The respondent challenged the order before the Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 12-4-1975 dismissed the same on the ground that that was not a pending case on 30-6-1974 when the relevant law was repealed. The respondent filed a Writ Petition No.867-R of 1975. The

1991 S C M R 1808                                                                                                  

learned Single Judge observed that `it is obvious that an entry was made of the petitioner's (present respondent) form under Settlement Scheme No. VI at No.2307 on 7-3-1962. In the presence of a certified copy from the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case had been remanded could not have considered the form to have been non existent merely because the record was not available. Similarly his finding that the delay in submission of the form was not condoned is also based on the absence of the record rather than any positive material. The record was obviously not in possession of the petitioner. He produced whatever material was available with him and since this material came from official source it cannot be rejected unless it was shown that this was a forgery which of course was not done in the present case'. He thus set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4-1-1975. This is vide order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-11 -1985. '