' The petitioners herein are successors-in-interest of Subedar Fateh Khan deceased. It is their case that their predecessor Subedar Fateh Khan had purchased land measuring 1988 Kanals, 10 Marlas.
In the year 1968-69 from the allottees namely Fazal Hussain and Devan Bakhsh out of which land measuring 999 Kanals, 5 Marlas was alienated by Subedar Fateh Khan in favour of his sons and the remaining land was alienated in favour of his wife and daughteRs, The allotment of Fazal Hussain and Devan Bakhsh came to be scrutinized under sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The land subject-matter of this petition was ordered to be cancelled being in excess of their entitlement. Litigation about cancellation became subject-matter of writ petitions.
While disposing of Writ Petition No,104-R of 1974 on 14-10-1985 it was observed that the petitioners may apply to the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for purchase of land in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. Resultantly vide order, dated 29-1- 1987 the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed Subedar Fateh Khan alone to purchase the land up to 12-1/2 acres at the market price. That order was sought to be challenged through Writ Petition No,81-R of 1987 which, however, was withdrawn on 2- 3-1987 in order to make a representation before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner. Subedar Fateh Khan and his sons thereafter made an application for the purchase of land but the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner declined to review his earlier order whereafter again Writ Petition No,50-R of 1992 was filed by Subedar Fateh Khan wherein on 12-11-1992 a statement was made by the learned counsel for the Settlement Department that the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner shall reconsider the case of the petitioneRs, The petition was accordingly not pressed and was disposed of accordingly. It is in this context that order dated 4-9-1995 was passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby it was ordered that the 4 sons of late Subedar Fateh Khan (petitioners Nos.1 to 4) will be "deemed to be owners in possession in place of their father" and were held "entitled to purchase the land up to 100 Kanals each from out of the land measuring 999 Kanals, 5 Marlas acquired by them vide Mutation 490 dated 26-10-1971 as per their choice on payment of price at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I.U. The widow and daughters of deceased Subedar Fateh Khan i,e, petitioners Nos.5 to 8 were not found "entitled to purchase at the rate of Rs,100 per PIU." It was observed "that they may, however, be eligible to purchase the land under their ownership/possession under the relevant scheme/instructions on payment of market price. Their case may, therefore, be processed separately and got expedited in terms of proviso to para. 3 of the Scheme for Disposal of Residual Evacuee Agricultural land and the Policy Letter No,986/86/5590/PA/ARC, dated 14-7-1986. The matter may be referred to District Collector, Khushab, accordingly". It is this order which has been challenged through this petition.
2. The learned counsel contends that another vendee namely Muhammad Zaman from the same allottees was allowed to purchase the whole of the land whereas a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioneRs, The learned counsel for the Department supports the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner and contends that the same is in accordance with law and needs no interference by this Court.
3. On consideration of the material on the record and connected files of writ petitions it is evident that Muhammad Zaman whose case is being cited as a precedent had filed Writ Petition No,162-R of 1983 in which it was observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court that "case of the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser for value on the basis of public record through a registered deed for which mutation was also sanctioned in his favour about 13 years ago will be considered for sale in accordance with law as it prevailed in 1973". It was the above mentioned order, which was implemented by 'the learned' Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner and given effect to. As noted above Subedar Fateh Khan had also approached this Court through Writ Petition No,1Q4-R of 1974 which was disposed of on 14-10-1985 in which the stance of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that "in order to avoid litigation the petitioners being in possession for more than prescribed period under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 are entitled to be offered the land for sale". It was in this context that the petition was disposed of with the direction that "the petitioners may apply to the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for action in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of Act XIV of 1975". It is thus apparent that the petitioners themselves wanted their entitlement to be considered under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 proviso to which placed certain limitations which have been given effect to by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief. Settlement 'Commissioner in the order impugned herein. In view of the inter parties order in W.P. No, 104-R of 1974 the petitioners could not take advantage of some order passed in another petition. They were bound by the order passed in their petition. Reference may be made to Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145. It may be observed that petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 were not found to have fulfilled the criteria of possession as per section 3 of the Act XIV of 1975. Nothing has been brought on the record to discredit the view of A the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner. Their father i,e, the predecessor-in-interest who had alienated the land to them was eligible at least to purchase land up to subsistence holding i,e, 12-1/2 acres. These ladies could have legitimate claim to that extent under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. Reference is made to Lt.-Col. (Rtcl.) Munir Hussain' and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue and others 1987 SCM R 1240. The order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner thus need to be modified to the extent that petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 will be given benefit of section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 to the extent their predecessor was entitled. Thus while processing their case, under paragraph No,3 of the Scheme as observed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, their case shall also be considered under section 3 of Act XIV.Of 1975 as indicated above.
' The petition is disposed of with the above modification and observations.