1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will govern Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 539 of 1977 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 607 of 1977, as they are directed against a common judgment of the High Court passed on 31-6-?.977 disposing of Writ Petitions Nos. 769- R/67 and 867-R/67. It may be mentioned that arguments before us were addressed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 539 of 1977 which is directed against Writ Petition No. 769-R of 1967 but the learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 607 of 1977, which is directed against Writ Petition No. 867-R of 1967, has submitted that the question falling determination in his case is the same as that in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 539 of 1977 and he has nothing to add to the submissions made by the counsel in the said matter.
2. It will, therefore, be convenient to discuss the first-mentioned matter, namely, Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 539 of 1977 and the decision thereon made applicable to the other case as well.
3. Hakim Razi-ur-Rehman and Hakim Fazal-ur-Rehman, respondents Nos. 1-2 (C. P. No. 539/77) are brothers and displaced persons from the non-agreed area. They filed claims for the agricultural land abandoned by them in India. In the year 1959, they were issued interim relief certificate as follows :- Razi-ur-Rehman for 298 P. I. Units ; and Fazal-ur-Rehman for 292 P. I. Units.
4. On 14-4-1959, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner allotted the disputed land to them. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had issued instructions vide Letter No. 726/62-3821-P (L) dated 24- 5-1962 that the area allotted under the interim Relief Scheme if not adjusted against a verified claim will be utilized for meeting the other pending claims. Since the claim of the respondents was still under verification and was not yet verified, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner without any notice affording them any opportunity of showing cause cancelled their allotment on 26-10- 1963 and allotted a portion of the disputed land to one Musa son of Khair Din. The respondents it appears, did not immediately become aware of this order. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed an appeal against the allotment made in favour of Musa son of Khair Din on the ground that they had their forms pending in the estate before Musa and had a superior claim to the land reverting back to the compensation pool after cancellation of the allotment of respondents 1-2 on 26-10- 1963. The appeal was accepted by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner vide his order dated 29-7-1964 and the disputed land was allotted to the petitioners.
5. On 25-8-1965, respondents 1-2 having become cognizant of the order dated 26-10-1963 whereby their allotments were cancelled filed six appeals before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner challenging the cancellation of their temporary allotment. These appeals were finally accepted on 8-5-1967.
6. Dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioners filed revision petition in the Court of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, whoby his order dated 8-8-1967 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner: The last- mentioned order was challenged by respondents 1-2 by filing a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 769-R/69) which was accepted by a learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the allotment wade in favour of the respondents had been cancelled without notice to them or affording any opportunity to show cause before the said order was passed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal (C. P. S. L. A. No. 539/77).
7. Syed Jamil Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioners has beer heard in support of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 539 of 1977. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the order of the High Court is plainly correct. The respondents having been allotted), the area in dispute under the Interim Relief Scheme were entitled to be heard before their allotment was cancelled. The submission that the instructions by the Chief Settlement Commissioner were binding on the Settlement Staff and consequently the cancellation of the temporary allotment of respondents 1-2 was perfectly valid even it was without notice cannot be accepted. The respon-- dents were in the words of the learned Single Judge of the High Court struggling to have their claim verified and if they had been issued a notice they would have been able to show that they had indeed abandoned land and they were not at fault if the verification had not been completed by the due date. Consequently, the order dated 26-10-1963 cancelling their allotment was illegal and void.
8. Syed Jamil Hussain Rizvi, in the end, submitted that the petitioners are being deprived of their only source of livelihood after 14 years and as the allotment of lands has since been banned they will not be able to get any allotment at this stage. He further submitted since the petitioners also hold verified claim and are being made to suffer for no fault of theirs, a direction should have been issued to the Settlement authorities to allot the land to the petitioners irrespective of the ban imposed on fresh allotments.
9. We agree with this submission of the petitioners and sympathise with their predicament. The Settlement authorities should, therefore, try to accommodate them if it is possible under any law.
10. Both these petitions must, however, fail and are rejected but with these observations.