' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner, namely, the Punjab Province and its officers in the Forest Department, impugn the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court, dated 17-2-1987 and of the appellate Court, dated 9-6-1998, whereby a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been partly decreed.
2. The facts of the case are straightforward. The claim of the respondents is that land measuring 252 Kanals 8 Marlas was allotted to Sobat Ali (respondent No,1) by the Settlement Department vide RL-II (Exh.P.9), dated 29-6-1974 and RL-II (Exh. P.10) dated 28-11-1963. They sought declaration of title to the suit-land based on the aforesaid allotments.
3. The petitioners-defendants resisted the suit based on two notifications. The first notification (Exh.D.1) is dated 2-10-1950. The notification is based on the authorization made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, whereby land mentioned in the schedule to the notification was to be managed by the Province as a protected forest, for a period of thirty years. The second notification (Exh.D.2) is dated 27-2-1965. The relevant part of this notification is reproduced as under:-- "Copy of Memorandum No,65/765-R(L) 27-2-1965 from the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Gurjat, Sheikhupura, Rawalpindi, Jhelum and Attock.
' Subject. Disposal of evacuee land in possession of the Forest Department.
' On the representation of Forest Department it has been decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that evacuee lands in possession of the Forest Department whether notified orunfortified should not be allotted against claims under the provision of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme till further orders."
4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 17-2-1987, held that the allotments (Exh.P-9 and Exh.P.10) in favor of Sobat Ali respondent-plaintiff, stood proved. As a consequence, the declaration sought by the respondents-plaintiffs to the extent of 252 Kanals 8 Marlas was granted. The Province preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate Court. It held that the RL-II (Exh.P-9) which related to 166 kanals 8 marlas was invalid in view of the notification (Exh.D.2) which had earlier been passed on 27-2-1965. However, in respect of 86-kanals covered under Exh.P.10, the declaratory decree sought by respondents-plaintiffs was granted for the reason that this allotment had been made in 1963 which was prior to the issuance of the notification (Exh.D.2).
5. The learned Law Officer has pointed out that even the decree to the extent of 86 kanals granted by the learned appellate Court is liable to be set aside. To support his argument, he has relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,269 of 1983. I have gone through the said judgment. It is on all fours with the present case. The precedent case also relates to evacuee land, which had been given by the Custodian to the Province for management by the Forest Department as protected forest. The notification (Exh.D.2), dated 27-2-1965 and its implication on allotments made subsequent to it was duly considered by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the cited case also a question had arisen that the allotment by the Settlement Department was made prior to the issuance of the notification, dated 27-2-1965. The allottee had argued that, in the circumstances, the allotment could not have been set aside based on the said notification. The Honourable Supreme Court held that although this argument was apparently attractive, it was not of any intrinsic value. The reason for this conclusion was that in the precedent case also, the land was under the management of the Forest Department from a date prior to the allotment made in favor of the allottee. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the allotment made in respect of such land suffers from a patent illegality.
6. The ratio of .The cited case is applicable to the present petitionalso. In the circumstances, the impugned decrees are set aside and, as a consequence, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs stands dismissed.