' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.322/R/1994,17/R of 1995 and Crl. Org. No, 881/W/1998.
2. Writ Petition No,322/R of 1994 is by Abdul Majeed son of Bahadar Khan while Writ Petition No,17/R of 1995 is by' Mohammad Ismail and others, the successor in interest of Muhammad Ibrahim. In Crl.
Org. No,881/W of 1998 there is a complaint of violation of the orders, dated 29-12-1994 and 20-5- 1997 passed in Writ Petition No,322/R of 1994. The case has a chequered history. However, the essential relevant facts are noted hereunder.
3. In Writ Petition No,322/R of 1994, Bahadur Khan, the father of the petitioner was allotted land equivalent to 362 P.I.Us against his verified claim. The land comprised in Killa No, 6/1, 7, 14 to 16 of Square No,38 in Mouza L. Plot now Tehsil and District Okara. Ibrahim, the successor in interest of the petitioners in Writ Petition No,17/R of 1995 was allotted land equivalent to 360 P.I.Us in Mouza L-Plot aforesaid comprising Killas Nos. 1, 8 to 12 of Square No,22. Both these allotments were made by the Assistant Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vkle order, dated 19-8-1959. Allotments in favour of other claimants were also made on 19-8-1959 in the said revenue estate. Muhammad Yaqoob, the predecessor in interest of the contesting respondents, felt aggrieved of the said allotment on the ground that he was a sitting allottee and his claim was pending in the aforesaid revenue estate. He, accordingly, challenged the allotments made in favour of the claimants in seven separate appeals before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner which were allowed vide order, dated 15-11-1960 on the ground that Muhammad Yaqoob. As a sitting allottee, was entitled to preference over other claimants. It was however, directed that after satisfying the claim of Muhammad Yaqoob, if some area available, it may be allotted to other claimants. Revision petitions filed by the allottees before the learned Settlement Commissioner were dismissed vide order,, dated 27-12-1962. Bahadur and 10 others assailed the said order in Writ Petition No,184/R of 1963 which was allowed vide order, dated 15-4-1966 and the case was, remanded to the learned Settlement Commissioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court aforesaid, the learned Settlement Commissioner re-heard all the seven ,revision petitions which were disposed of vide order, dated 8-12-1969. As far as Bahadur and Ibrahim are concerned, it was found that they had no right to claim allotment in Mouza. L-Plot. Against the order, dated 8-12-1969 Writ Petition No,1274/R of 1969 was filed by the allottees including Abdul Majeed, which was dismissed against which petition for leave to appeal No, 985/L/1975 was dismissed on 29-4-1980.
4. While implementing the order, dated 15-11-1960, the Notified Officer vide order, dated 17-6-1981 directed allotment of an area of 101 Kanals, 11 Marlas equivalent to 797 P.I.Us in favour of Muhammad Yagoob. The allottees approached this Court in Writ Petition No,452/R of 1981, 382/R of 1982 and 383/R of 1982. All these writ petitions were allowed vide judgment, dated 28-7-1991 of this Court and the case was remanded to the Notification Officer with the observation that the order, dated 15-11-1960 will be treated as pending compliance and after satisfying the claim of Muhammad Yaqoob the allottees will be entitled to retain land against their verified valid entitlement. Against the said judgment Muhammad Sadiq and six others filed C.P.L.A. No,949/L of 1991, 950/L of 1991 and 951/L of 1991 to seek a direction for implementation of the order, dated 8-12- 1969 which were however, dismissed, vide order, dated 8-3-1992.
5. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, dated 28-7-1991 aforesaid, the Notified Officer took up the matter. Before him the learned counsel for the allottees and learned counsel for Muhammad Yaqoob agreed for allotment of land in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob equivalent to 616 P.I.Us.
However contrary to the aforesaid agreement land equivalent to 734 P.I.Us was allotted in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob. This includes Killa No,16 of Square No,38 which was at some stage allotted to Bahadar and Killa Nos. 1, 8 to 12 which had been under allotment of Ibrahim. The two writ petitions call in question the aforesaid order of the Notification Officer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Muhammad Yaqoob was entitled to allotment only against 616 P.I.Us. As agreed to by the parties. Further that entitlement of Muhammad Yaqoob and not been correctly worked out. Nobody appears for the contesting respondents although they are duly represented by a learned counsel.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered and the relevant record examined. In accordance with the judgment, dated 28-7-1991 of this Court passed in Writ Petition 452/R of 1981 (which has attained finality having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) the entitlement of the parties was to be worked out. According to the impugned order Muhammad Yaqoob had a verified claim for 1659 P.I.Us and was allowed a Beshi of 118 P.I.Us.
Thus he had a total entitlement of 1777 P.I.Us out of which 1008 P.I.Us had been allotted in his favour at Khata No,136 thereby leaving 769 P.I.Us as unsatisfied. However, he was allotted land equivalent to 734 P.I.Us including the Beshi. I had entertained some doubts about the working out of the entitlement of Mohammad Yaqoob. Accordingly the relevant register R.L.II was directed to be produced. It was produced by the Naib Tehsildar, Renala Khurd on 20-3-2002. He stated that land equivalent to 1659 P.I.Us was verified in favour of Mohammad Yaqoob and he was allowed a Beshi of 118 P.I.Us, thus, entitling him to allotment against 1777 P.I.Us. I wanted to further satisfy as to whether entitlement of Mohammad Yaqoob had correctly been worked out. Again on 21-5-2003 the Naib Tehsildar appeanted and stated that the basis to work out the said entitlement was the "Jantri". Perusal of the R.L.II showed that Muhammad Yaqoob had abandoned land in India, the name of the village was not clearly legible on Khata Number 136 but the assessment circle noted was, Dhora, Tehsil and District Ferozepur (India). On examination of the "Jantri" which was in possession of the Naib Tehildar, I found, to my surprise, that in Tehsil Ferozepur (India) assessment circle Dhora did not find any mention. Therefore, the impugned order of the Notified Officer whereby entitlement of Muhammad Yaqoob, including the Beshi was worked out at 1777 P.I.Us had no basis, at least, the impugned order does not reflect the method of translating the entitlement of Muhammad Yaqoob in terms of P.I.Us. Although in accordance with the judgment, dated 28-7-1991 the entitlement of the petitioner was required to be worked out yet the parties before the Notified Officer agreed for allotment of land in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob equivalent to 616 P.I.Us. No reason is forthcoming in the impugned order as to why this agreement of the parties was disregarded by the Notified Officer by allotting land equivalent to 734.P.I.Us.
8. In view of what has been stated above, and particularly the compromise before the learned Assistant Commissioner the impugned order in so far as it directed allotment of land equivalent to 734 P.I.Us. In favour of Muhammad Yaqoob is not sustainable and is accordingly declared as without lawful authority. However, I do not consider it necessary that entitlement of Muhammad Yaqoob should be determined afresh because I am of the view that the agreement of the parties before the Notified Officer should be given effect to. If after satisfying the 616 P.I.Us. Of Muhammad Yaqoob any area is available it may be allotted/allowed to be retained by the allottee as earlier directed in the judgment, dated 452/R of 1981. Both these writ petitions are allowed in the above terms and the case is remanded to the Notified Officer for passing a fresh order in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Since the Writ Petition No,322/R/1994 has been disposed of, I am not inclined to proceed further in the contempt matter. No order as to costs.