' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- On 9-1-2006 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. It was stated in the plaint that they are owners in possession of the suit-land, mentioned in para-1 of the plaint. They have learnt that vide order dated 7-12-2005 the respondent No.2 has cancelled the proprietorship of the petitioners and transferred the land in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and on the same date Mutations Nos.394 and 395 were attested. The order was stated to be illegal and void for the reason that the suit- land was not subject-matter of the proceedings pending before the respondent No.2 and they were not issued any notice and have been condemned unheard. It was stated that the respondent No. 2 has purportedly acted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which stands repealed w.e.f. 1-6-1974. The land was allotted at RL-II No.30 on 26-8-1969 and was sold to the predecessor of the plaintiffs on 29-8-1978 by means of the registered sale-deed. The allotment was never questioned before the repeal of the said law. A declaration and an injunction was prayed for accordingly. Along with the suit an application was filed for grant .Of temporary injunction for maintenance of status quo qua the possession. The suit and the application were resisted by the respondents with the plea that the order has been passed in compliance with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has validly restrained the allotment of Forest land vide order dated 27- 2-1965. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 23-1-2006. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned A.D.J., Sialkot, on 27-6-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned lower Courts have assumed that the suit-land was a reserved or protected Forest or notified as such. He relies on copy of an order dated 27-7-1976 passed by an Advocate Supreme Court (Land), with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, dismissing the application filed by the Forest Department against the vendor of the petitioners for cancellation of the allotment. The learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, supports the impugned orders with reference to judgment dated 9-1-1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, inter alia, in Civil Appeal No.307 of 1981 (Province of Punjab v.
Muhammad Mahmood Shah and 3 others). According to him, the land having been allotted after the cut out date of 27-2-1965 mentioned in the said judgment, the respondent No.2 had competently cancelled the allotment and transferred the land in favour of the Forest Department.
3.I have gone through the copies of the records in the light of the said submissions of the learned counsel and the. Learned Law Officer. To my mind, the question as to whether the allotment made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners falls within the mischief of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requires determination of .Some factual aspects i.e. Whether the land was lawfully acquired for the Forest Department or was lawfully declared as a reserved or protected Forest and, of course, the effect of the said order dated 27-7-1976 of the Advocate Supreme Court (L), inter parties, will also have to' be determined in the course of trial. The petitioners being, admittedly, in possession, they will.Suffer an irreparable loss in case the injunction prayed for is refused. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour. The learned A.A.-G.
Requests that a direction be issued to the learned trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside and the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit. No order as to costs.
4. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned trial Court who shall take all steps to decide the suit on or before 31-10-2007 under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.