1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-These petitions for leave to appeal ate directed against the judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in two writ petitions bearing No. 1673-R of 1976 and 124-R of 1977 against which C. P. S. L. A. No. 1060 of 1979 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 1061 of 1979, have been preferred. Since the same question of law and facts are involved in both the smatters this order will govern both the said petitions.
2. The relevant facts are that 64 kanals of land situated in Squares Nos. 55, 59 and 60 in Chak No. 127/N, Tehsil and District Sargodha was obtensibly allotted to Messrs Syed Muhammad Ahmad, Syed Hamood Ullah and Syed Tahseen-ul-Hassan sons of Syed Habibul Hassan in satisfaction of their claim through their attorney Nabi Bakhsh. These persons have been referred to as "the claimants" in the judgment of the High Court and it would be convenient to refer them as such in this order as well.
3. The above allotment in favour of the claimants was alleged to have been made on Form MR-V in respect of land equivalent to 641 Units that was abandoned by them. Syed Muhammad Ahmad sold one-half of the said land to one Muhammad Rafiq; the present petitioner and one-half to one Allah Ditta. The petitioners also purchased the share of Allah Ditta from him; thus, they became owners of the entire area which was allotted to the claimants. The transactions of sale were through registered sale deeds.
4. An information was lodged under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act wherein it was asserted that the land in dispute had been obtained fraudulently by Nabi Bakhsh, the attorney of the claimants. The original claim form was sent to the officer incharge of the Central Record Office and the report submitted by him was to the effect that the copy of the Form MR-V on which the area in dispute had been obtained was not the official copy but the one meant for the claimant. It was further reported that the claim was, in fact, verified for District Khairpur
(Sind) and not for District Sargodha where the land in dispute has been allotted; moreover, the place for which it was verified was rubbed off and it was shown to have been verified for District Sargodha. Besides the area originally verified was rural but it had fraudulently been shown as urban land. In view of this report, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha vide his order dated 15-4-1976 directed the registration of a criminal case. While the case was being investigated by the police, a further application was submitted by the informers that as the investigation might take some time, therefore, the matter may be disposed of finally. The Additional Settlement Commissioner sent notices to the present petitioners but as they allegedly declined to accept service, substituted service was ordered to be affected by issuance of a citation in the press.
5. Thereafter ex parte proceedings were taken against the petitioners and an order was passed on 21-10-1976 cancelling the allotment in favour of the claimants and allotting the land to the informers (Respondents 2-4 herein). It appears that the said respondent sold the land to one Allah Ditta son of Haji Lal Khan who is respondent No. 5 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 1061 of 1979. The order dated 21- 10-1976 was challenged by a review petition but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner acting as delegatee of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review his own order. This led to the filing of the two writ petitions in the Lahore High Court (W. P. 1673-R/76 and W. P. 124-R/77). In the last-mentioned writ petition besides respon--dents 2-4, Allah Ditta son of Haji Lal Khan etc. Was also impleaded and this circumstance., namely, the addition of a further party has necessitated the filing of a separate writ petition.
6. The High Court vide its order dated 12-11-1979 dismissed both the writ petitions holding that even if the service of respondent was not in the normal way, the Tribunal concerned was satisfied that this was the only way in the circumstances in which the service could have been affected. In these circumstances, the petitioner must be deemed to have a knowledge of the proceedings and in any case they had been afforded an opportunity of being, heard. On the merits it was observed that the Rehabilitation Scheme has prescribed the procedure as to how claim is to be transferred from one District to another. Under the provision of the Scheme the allotment of land on the copy meant for the claimant is barred. In these circumstances, the allotment in dispute was obtained on the copy of the verified claim meant .For the claimant and that, too, after rubbing off the district of which it was verified the relevant settlement authority was justified in taking the view that the allotment had been obtained fraudulently. The learned Judge further observed that there was nothing to show that the claimants had not obtained the allotment against their claim elsewhere because if the claimants had not obtained the allotment in District Khairpur (Sind)-for which the claim was originally verified-evidence could have been lead in this regard. Hence the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in cancelling the allotment of the claimants and their successors-in-interest and allotting the land in favour of the informers.
7. Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners laid great stress on the point that notice had not been served upon the petitioners, and, therefore, ex parte proceedings taken against them was illegal and without jurisdiction. He took us through the various proceedings leading to passing of the order ex parte against the petitioners. The key report in this connection has been made by Rehmat Khan, Peon, which is to the following effect :-- This report was ultimately accepted and ex Parte proceedings were taken. According to Mr. Mumtaz Hussain under section 23 of-the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act every officer acting under the said Act bad the same power as is vested in a civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, trying a suit, in respect of certain matters which have been prescribed in the said provision. Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, is also one of the matters prescribed therein. According to the learned counsel, this provision makes the provisions of the C. P.
8. C. Applicable to the matter of affecting service on parties and, therefore, the order for substituted service could have been made only after exhausting the procedure laid down for summoning the other side in Order V, rules 17 and 19, C. P. C. The failure to comply with the said procedure rendered the ultimate order as without lawful authority.
9. We are not inclined to accept this submission. The matter prescribed under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, namely, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath relates to the summoning of witness or a party for the purpose of examining him and these provisions are contained in sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and Order XVI, rule 1 to 21 C. P. C. Therefore, the provisions of Order V of the C. P. C. Have not been specifically mentioned amongst the matters for which an officer of the Settlement Department is conferred the same powers as are vested in a civil Court. In this case, efforts were made to serve the petitioners personally but according to the report of the Chaprasi they refused to accept the summons. This led to adopting the procedure for effecting the service through substituted service; by citation in the press. The citation was duly published but the petitioners did not appear. In these circumstances, the proceedings taken ex parte against them cannot be considered either irregular, unjust or in--equitable. Furthermore, the finding of the Settlement authorities, namely: that the original claimants had got allotment on the copy meant for them although this could not be done in view of the provisions of para. 9-B of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (Part 1l); that the claim was meant for Khairpur District but this was rubbed off and the word Khairpur was substituted by Sargodha: the possibility that the original claimants had obtained allotments both in Khairpur and also in Sargodha were circumstances which rendered their allotment liable to cancellation and the said allotment was, therefore, rightly cancelled. The competent Settlement authority has found that the above-noted circumstance stood established.
10. Consequently, the order passed by the Settlement Authority cancelling the allotment in favour of Syed Muhammad Ahmad etc., the original claimants, was clearly a just and legal order.
11. We do not think this case to be a fit one for interference. Both the petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.