1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-This order disposes of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 49-R and 63-R of 1976. The petitioners are the same in both the petitions. The former is directed against the common judgment dated 1-3-1976 of a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court by which Writ Petition No. 132-R of 1971 was dismissed in which the order dated 13-2-1971 passed by the Commissioner, Multan was assailed. The latter is directed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 226-R of 1971 by the same judgment in which the order of verification dated 23-6-1967 was impugned. In both the petitions the facts are common and, therefore, the contentions urged were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment.
2. The dispute relates to the entitlement of Bodh Singh and to the allotment of 250 kanals and 13 marlas of land to him. He was the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 who, it was alleged, came to Pakistan from Alwar State on Partition in 1947. He submitted his claim for verification of the land left by him in village Jagrawar, Alwar State and was issued a provisional certific4te under paragraph 19 of the Rehabilitation Scheme pending the receipt of the record from Alwar State. He was provisionally allotted land on 27-8-1952 in village Roshan Roy Wala, Tehsil and District Mulcan which was confirmed on 31-10-1953. Subsequently, on the receipt of record it transpired that Bodh Singh had not owned any land in his native village. Accordingly, the provisional certificate was cancelled by the Central Record Office, Lahore and the A. R. C. (Lands), Multan, thereupon issued a notice to the widow Mst. Khiloni to show cause as to why the land allotted to Bodh Singh should not be cancelled, as in the meantime Bodh Singh had died. It was cancelled on 2-3-1959 and it became available for allotment against pending verified claim. By this time the claims of Ilam Din and Roshan Din, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners were transferred from village Faridpur to village Roshan Roy Wala by the A. R. C. Vide order dated 17-2-1959. The land entered in the Khata of Bodh Singh was next proposed for allotment to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners on 2-3-1959 vide Khata Nos. 99 and 100 in lieu of their verified claims and the proposals were confirmed on 31-3-1959. Against this confirmation of land respondents Nos. 2 to 4 herein preferred two appeals before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan who dismissed them on 23-10-1959 on the ground that they had no entitlement for the land. As to the plea that the land should be reserved, it was also rejected. Khiloni and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 next preferred a revision which was consigned to record by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan by order dated 28-3-1960. However, they were given the option to have it revived in the event of their Fard-e-Haqiyyat being verified. On 14-4-1959 a Press Note was issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan permitting the verification of the claims of Refugees from Alwar State in the manner prescribed for the verification of Claims under Schedule V to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. Pursuant to it the claim of Bodh Sing was verified on 23-6-1967. Mst. Khiloni thereupon moved the Rehabilitation Commissioner for the revival of her revision petition. The Rehabilitation Commissioner thereupon made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner objecting to the verification of the claim on the analogy of Schedule V to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 as in his view the claim related to the agreed area and it could only be verified under the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act V of 1949. His successor on having come to know of the Press Note did not wait for the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner but proceeded to . Decide the revision and by order dated 13-2-1971 held the verification of the claim to be in order and restored the allotment of the land to respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal against the impugned orders.
3. It was urged before the learned Single Judge- in the High Court that the claim form of Bodh Singh having been filed under the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Claims) Act V of 1949, it could only be verified on the basis of the Jamabandi, if any, received from Alwar State and not on the analogy of verification of Claims under Schedule V to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956.
4. In this connection reliance was placed on paragraph 25 of Part II of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The learned Single Judge repelled the contention on the ground that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had validly issued the Press Note under paragraph 23 of Part I of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and that a large number of claims had already been verified on that basis and, therefore, there could not be any objection to the manner prescribed for the verification of the claim under the Press Note in the absence of any bar against - it in the Scheme. The learned Single Judge also held that paragraph 29 was itself an instruction which was issued under paragraph 23 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and for this reason it does not stand on any higher footing so as to annul the mode prescribed for verification in the Press Note. Hence no exception could be taken to it. In regard to the cancellation of the land confirmed in the khata of the petitioners the learned Single Judge held that the Rehabilitation Commissioner had concluded on the material before him that the respondents were neither present at the time when the Khata was cancelled nor was it established that they had notice of its cancellation as the notice alleged to have been issued was not duly served on Mst. Khiloni which finding of fact was unexceptionable and, therefore, `the orders cancelling allotment of land from the Khata of Bodh Singh and allotting the same to the petitioners were void ab initio and, as is obvious, they cannot claim any -vested rights on the basis of a void order'. The learned Single Judge further held that the Settlement Commissioner was right in holding that under paragraph 20 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme `it was incumbent on the authorities concerned to reserve 75 per cent. Of the area when the claim and objection of the respondent were pending r scrutiny, and therefore, the petitioners could not claim any vested right to the allotment of the disputed land on the basis of the orders and proceedings which suffered from various infirmities'. According to the learned .Single Judge this conclusion duly rested on the factum of the pendency of the objections of Bodh Singh which was evident from the record brought by Razi Haider, aNaib-Tehsildar in the Central Record Office. One another consideration which prevailed with the learned Single Judge was that the respondents were the temporary allottees of the land in the village and as such they had a preferential right as against the petitioners whose claims were subsequently received by way of transfer and, therefore, they could not have been allotted that land in preference to the respondents some time when the dispute relating to it was sub judice in the sense that an option was given to revive the petition which order the petitioners had not challenged. As such no exception could be taken by the petitioners to the cancellation of the allot--ment of the land by the Rehabilitation Commissioner while allowing the revision. It was again urged that the verification of the claim on the analogy of Schedule V to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 was illegal in view of paragraph 29 of Part 11 of the Scheme which permits verification only on the basis of the entries in the special Jamabandi. '" was also pointed out that the word `claim' as defined in section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, did not include the claim of a person who had migrated from the States of Alwar, Bhattpu and Bekaneer, and, therefore, it could not be verified on the analogy o Schedule VI to the Act as prescribed in the Press Note. It is not disputed that paragraph 29 of Part 11 of the Scheme is itself an instruction which was issued for the implementation of the Scheme. Its language is also not rigid in its application, for, it provides that in case of hardship in an individual case reference could be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner which clearly implies a relaxation of the instruction. On this view of the matter it is difficult to accept that no provision could be made for the reverification of the claim otherwise than on the basis of the entries in the special Jamabandi. Therefore, to alleviate the hardship of the refugees from those States the Press Note was issued under the powers conferred by paragraph 23 of the Scheme which provided for the verification of their claims on the analogy of Schedule VI to the Registration of Claim (Displaced Persons) Act, 1955. This Press Note is on the same footing as paragraph 29 of Part 11 of the Scheme and as such paragraph 29 can have no overriding effect. As for the embargo placed on the verification of the claims of the refugees from these States in the Registration of Claim (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, it will have no application for the claim was not verified in pursuance of the provisions of that Act but only a mode was prescribed akin to Schedule VI to the Act under paragraph 23 of the Scheme the legality of which cannot be denied in the absence of any bar in the Scheme itself. Therefore, this contention has no substance.
5. As to the exception taken to the cancellation of the land which stood confirmed in the Khatas of the petitioners, the Rehabilitation Commissioner has held that the land was not available for transfer as it was cancelled without notice to respondents Nos. 2-4 and in any case, since the objection of respondents 2-4 to the rejection of the claim was pending with the Central Record Office 75 per cent. Of the disputed land should have been reserved under` paragraph 20 of the Scheme instead of allotting the land to the. Petitioners, more so when the respondents 2-4 had a preferential right to retain it. The learned Single Judge rightly accepted the conclusion of the Rehabilitation Commissioner which, in our view, is unexceptionable.
6. Finding no substance in the petitions, we dismiss them.