' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---According to the contents of this writ petition the matter of allotment of land resumed from one Ghulam Mustafa under M.L.R. 64 was decided by the DLC, Vehari, on 18- 9-1984. According to the contents of this order, the land was not found to be in possession of any person during the harvests of Kharif, 1971 and Rabi, 1972. The DLC proceeded to allot the land to 10 tenants. It was also observed that all these persons were also landowners in the village. The land was accordingly allotted to make up subsistence holding. The writ petitioners are stated to be the said allottees.
2. Now the available record shows that in December, 1984, the DLC had found that he had not passed a correct order. He accordingly sought sanction to review from the Land Commissioner, Multan. The case was sent to the Punjab Land Commissioner. On 22-6-1987 the Land Commissioner was informed that the power to review no longer. Exists. However, the Land Commissioner can look into the matter. The Land Commissioner proceeded to sanction the review of the order dated 18-9- 1984. The case was taken up but could not be decided. It ultimately came up before the DLC on 5- 6-1991 who found that he has no powers to review and dismissed the case. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Addl. Land Commissioner by the deceased respondent No.5. It was dismissed on 30-8-1992. A further revision was filed before the Chief and Commissioner, Punjab, under Rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972. The CLC proceeded to dismiss the revision for the reasons recorded by him in para-3 of his order dated 25-11-1993. Thereafter, he proceeded to take suo motu notice of the mater and concluded that the order is violative of law inasmuch as landowners have been preferred to the landless tenants of the village. Against this order, a revision petition was filed before the Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, which was dismissed on 11- 12-1998.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the CLC proceeded to cancel the allotment in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, without any notice to the petitioners. He further contends that upon a reading of the said impugned order it cannot he said that it was a case of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction. Learned A..A.-G., on the other hand, contends that the CLC proceeded to dismiss the revision that was filed by the private respondents. Thereafter, he took notice of the matter and proceeded to exercise suo motu jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the same is without lawful authority. He relies on the case of Federal Government of Pakistan and another v. Khurshid Zaman Khan and others (1999 SCM R 1007). Learned counsel for LRs of respondent No.5 argues that the impugned order of CLC is a just order passed in the true spirit of the said law and in any case the matter is to be redecided by the DLC after hearing all concerned.
4. We have examined the available records. Now there is no denial that in the mater of allotment of the land resumed under M.L.R. 64 and for that matter M.L.R. 115, the preferential right in the matter of allotment vests in a landless tenant. Now although there is a mention in the order dated 18-9-1984 that no person is found to be, in cultivating possession of the resumed land for the crucial harvests yet there is no finding recorded that there is no landless tenant in the village in question or for that matter in possession of the said land. It was primarily for this reason, the DLC who passed the said order himself concluded that he has passed a wrong order and then the said proceedings commenced.
5. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not a case of suo motu exercise of jurisdiction, is concerned we find that the said judgment being relied upon by the learned A.A.-G. Completely answers the same. The CLC did record an order dismissing the revision petition for reasons stated by him and thereafter he found it to be a case for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction and then he proceeded to pass the order for reasons which have not even been questioned. The DLC has been directed to conduct the proceedings in accordance with law and consequently all concerned including the petitioners will be heard and thereafter appropriate orders would be passed.
6. We do find that the impugned order apart from being with jurisdiction, is legal and just and we are not at all inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed . No orders as to costs.