' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against judgment, dated 7-11- 2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, in Writ Petition No,223/R of 1987/BWP.
Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced below:-- "The allotment of petitioners Mst. Ummati, etc. Had been cancelled on 31-7-1973 by Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sadiqabad. This order was challenged through separate revision petitions by the petitioners before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur who vide his order, dated 1-12-1973 accepted the same and the land was restored in the names of the petitioners. The order dated 20-11-1962 passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner had been challenged by the parties and the Honourable Supreme Court vide its order, dated 12-11-1985 restored the same. In compliance with this order, respondent No,1 passed the impugned order. The above narrated facts prove that the petitioners' case falls within "pending proceedings".
(19) Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, is reproduced for ready reference:-- "3. Transfer of property.--- All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government, for disposal---
(a) in the case of urban properties, by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf; and
(b) in the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf: ' Provided that agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land: ' Provided further that only so much land shall be offered to such person as does not together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972.
(2) The agricultural land temporarily allotted under any of the aforeaid Acts or Regulations to a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir State or to such other person as the Federal Government may determine who is not in cultivating possession of the allotted land, shall be offered for sale to such allottee unless an order of cancellation of allotment has been passed against him in respect of such land: ' Provided .....................................................................
' Provided .......................................................................
Provided .....................................................................
(20) From mere reading of the above provisicns of law it is transpired that only such land shall be offered for sale to the occupant who is in continuous possession for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973 which may be available immediately before the repeal of Act or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of final order passed under subsection
(3) of section 2. Final order in the present case means the final order in the implementation of the order dated 20-11-1962 which was a "penc'ing proceeding" on the relevant date of repeal i,e, 30-6- 1974.
(21) The petitioners Mst. Ummati, etc. Were allottees of the land in litigation along with with other parties till final disposal of the case by the apex Court. They have been deprived of the land by the respondent No,1 vide impugned order on the ground that they were not the informants. He had failed to notice that they were the previous allottees and entitled to allotment as opposite party in the implementations of order dated 20-11-1962."
3. From perusal of the above, it is abundantly clear that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court vide judgment, dated 22-12-1985 remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for implementation of its earlier order, dated 20-11-1962. Admittedly, in those proceedings Mst. Ummati was one of the party and on remand of the case after having satisfied the claim of Abdul Hakeem if some property is available that is to be allotted against her verified claim vide RL-II Nos.62, 63 and
64. Thus, we are of the opinion that while implementing the judgment of this Court if some property was available after satisfying the claim of Abdul Hakeem first preference of allotment would be given to Mst. Ummati and on satisfying her claim if even then some property is available it would be adjusted against the claim of one of the writ petitioners before the High Court. When we inquired from the learned counsel as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by passing above order by learned High Court he stated that Abdul Hakeem's entitlement was subject to determination that he has relinquished the property which he got allotted in the names of his sons in the Districts Sahiwal and Multan and as no such determination had taken place, therefore, petitioners were entitled for the transfer of the land being in its occupation under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975. A perusal of impugned judgment indicates that .Abdul Hakeem furnished affidavits to prove relinquishment of the property allotted in the names of his sons in Districts Sahiwal and Multan which has been accepted by the Notified Officer, therefore, it being a question of fact is not open to exception. As far as claim of petitioners for the transfer of property is concerned, it would be accepted after satisfying/adjustment of the claim of Mst. Ummati against her RL-II Nos.62, 63 and 64 because in terms of C judgment of this Court dated 22nd December, 1985 as her case falls within the definition of pending cases as it has rightly been held by the learned High Court.
4. Thus, keeping in view above discussion, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned judgment has been made out. Therefore, petition is dismissed and .