MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Fazal Muhammad, Khushi Muhammad, Ali Muhammad and Abdul Ghani, real brothers, settled in Chak No. 9/14-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, after having taken refuge in Pakistan. Killa No. 3-4/1 measuring 14 Kanals was allotted to them. This allotment in favour of Abdul Ghani was cancelled because he had obtained allotment in excess of his entitlement of 112 P. I.
Units. He challenged this up to the Supreme Court but failed. This cancellation had taken place on 16-4-1963.
2. On 28-4-1973 the land was proposed in favour of Fazal Muhammad etc. And was so confirmed on 15-5-73. Abdul Ghafoor, respondent, appealed against it on the ground that the allotment of Ghani has been cancelled on account of his laying the information where for the land was allotted to him on 27-6-1974. A Writ Petition No. 1274/R-1974 filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 18-3- 1980. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted that allotment of land having been confirmed in favour of the petitioners on 15-5-1973, the same could not have been taken away from them in consequence of the addition of section 14(1)(a) by the Displaced Persons Land Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1974 on 15-5-1974.
Section 14(1)(a) was amended by this Act no doubt, but this subsection became a part of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act by Act LIV of 1973, known as Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Land Settle--ment) (Amendment) Act, 1973, which reads as follows :- "Where on the information of a claim about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land the information has been proved to be correct and the land so acquired has been cancelled and resumed by the competent authority, the resumed land shall be allotted to the informant to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same Province."
This subsection is retrospective in application as is clear from the! Expression "has been" used twice in it, and we, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the petitioner to the contrary.
4. Similarly the submission that para. 77 of the Scheme regarding rights of Mukhbars having been withdrawn, the respondents had no right to the allotment of this land in any case, particularly when it stood allotted and was not available for allotment.
This submission is answered in the preceding paragraph. The right of Ghafoor to an allotment of the property in dispute matured on 16-4-1963 at a time when the allotment no longer stood in the name of Ghani and had not been proposed in the name of the petitioners either. Any allotment made after this date in the name of anybody other than Ghafoor was against the provisions of the law and has, therefore, rightly been annulled.
5. This petition has no merit and is dismissed.