Law: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Section: 10 , 11

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)--- ----Ss. 10 & 11---Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), Ss.l, 2 & 3---Allotment of land, cancellation of---Allotment of land in dispute duly made in favour of petitioner in 1963 who was claimant displaced person and whose verified claim was never disputed, was challenged by respondent in 1981 by filing application under Sections 10 and 11 of Act (XLVII of 1958), on ground of fraud---Authorities re-opened case of petitioner on that application---Act (XLVII of 1958) having been repealed in 1975 and no law being available under which Settlement Authorities could re-open finalised allotment of petitioner, no jurisdiction was vested in Settlement Authorities to re-open confirmed allotment of petitioner that being a transaction past and closed. Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner. Ch. M. Nazir Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 7th July, 1991. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a claimant displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An entitlement certificate (Annexure `A') was issued in favour of the petitioner showing that he was entitled to the allotment of land equivalent to his 24530 P.I.Us. On the basis of this document some land was allotted to him by the  Deputy  Settlement  Commissioner  on  4-3-1963,  vide   Annexure `C'. An application was moved by the respondent No.3 on 12-9-1981, presumably under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the cancellation of the allotment made to the petitioner. On the application of respondent No.3, the case was re-opened by respondents Nos.1 and 2 Learned counsel has challenged the proceedings being initiated for cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner by said respondent. He submits that the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed in the year 1975 and as such there was no law available under which the respondents could re-open the finalized allotment of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Sher Afzal Khan v. Haji Razi Abdullah…