1. ORD13R NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of both Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal No. 877 of 1974 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 18 of 1975 as the facts and the questions of law arising therein are similar.
2. The facts. Of the case briefly are that the contesting respondents in both the petitions were residents of Village Hajipur Gujlaran. Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot, which lies along the River Ravi. The said village was inundated by the change in the course of the river in 1955 and the inhabitants. Of village Hajipur Gujjaran, including the respondents, were allotted land in village Jhangarwan situate in the same tehsil. This action was apparently taken by the authorities under para. 27 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme which provides that those who had ownership, occupancy or other rights in land falling in the Pakistan territory according to Radcliffs Award but situated on the Pakistan side of the rivers Ravi and Sutlej and who had to abandon them should be treated as displaced persons from India and subject to title settled on land allotted to them under the Scheme provided they surrender their rights in favour of the Pakistan Government .In land which had gone outside their possession.
3. Some years laser, the river again hanged its course and the land of village Hajipur Gujjaran age in- re-appeared and came on the side of Pakistan with the result that the former inhabitants of the said village were asked to return to their villageland had come out again. Some inhabitants of village A Hajipur 6ajjaran filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 170-R of 1960) in the High Court challenging the order or orders whereby land allotted to them in village Jhangarwan was being taken away and they were being required to return to their own village. Since the cancellation of the allotment was made under orders of a Boorder Allotment Committee the High Court dismiss--ed the writ petition for want of jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the case.
4. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were made allotments of land in village Jhangarwan in both the cases, against their verified claim. The displaced persons from village Hajipur Gujjaran made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner against the allotment on the ground that they bad been given land on permanent basis under para. 27 of the Settlement Scheme and as such could not be deprived of the same. This plea was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
5. Sialkot, who directed that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners may be cancelled. The appeal and revision filet by the petitioners against the said order were dismissed. One passage from the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition may here be reproduced with advantage:- "Now regarding facts the story in very brief is that Board of Revenue ordered alternative allotment for settlement of the displaced persons due to flood where they remained 4/5 years and made their homes. Ordering them back when the river changed its course leaving behind sand and silt, destroying the wells anti other means of irrigation. That will mean making them refugees the second time and categorising them as displaced persons the second time. If that land is still fit it can be allotted to the new settlers rather than moving up once settled persons and settle them on the river banks again."
6. The petitioners thereupon filed writ petitions before the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 334-R/68 and W. P. No. 339-R/68) which were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the said Court. It was contended before the Court that as the inhabitants of village Hajipur Gujjaran had once agitated against the cancellation of their allotment by the Border Area Committee and their writ petitions directed against the said order had been dismissed they did not have any locus stands to contest the allotment of the land in village Jahgarwan made in favour of the petitioners and the settlement authorities could not therefore, set aside the said allotments and to restore the earlier allotments made in favour of the respondents. The learned Judge in the High Court found that the earlier decision of the High Court did not constitute a bar to the fresh determination of the matter as there is no adjudication on the point of merits of the case. It was held that the order of the High Court could not stand in the way of the contesting respondents so far as their entitlement or otherwise in regard to the land in question is concerned. It was further held that after the change in the course of the river-. Whereby the inhabitants of village - Hajipur Gujjaran were deprived of their land of the village they were directed to put in their claims in respect of the land abandoned by them. The said claims after having been verified stood satisfied and the land in lieu of them has been given to the inhabitants of village Hajipur Gujjaran. Furthermore, they surrendered their proprietary rights in village Hajipur Gujjaran in favour of the Central Government and the said land was taken over by the Central Government under this Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and treated as an evacuee property and since now had been allotted to the displaced persons as such.
7. Consequently the land existing in village Hajipur Gujjaran was not any more available for settling the contesting respondents. In these circumstances, it was observed that there was no reason to interfere, with the impugned orders of the Settlement authorities. Both the writ petitions were therefore dismissed on 21-1-1974.Hence these petitions for leave directed against the said orders.
8. After hearing Mr. Amjad Khan on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Abdul Mannan on behalf of the contesting respondents was think that no ground has been made out for interference with the orders passed by the Settlement authorities and upheld by the High Court Although the lands of the respondents were on Pakistan side of the border but being situate on the bank of the river, which was constantly shifting its course, they were given the status of "statutory refugees" under the terms of Para 27 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme when they were affected by the fiver action. Once they were made allotment of evacuee property on this basis and they had been properly settled on such lands they could not be shifted back to their original land, if by the vagaries of nature the land originally occupied b them re-appeared. In any case, as pointed out by Mr. Abdul Mannan, after the land which was originally occupied by them came under the rive they surrendered the same in favour of the Central Government and mutation was duly sanctioned to this effect and that they did not any longer remain owners thereof. It is also stated that lands in the said village have, in the meanwhile; been allotted to other refugees. In these circum. Stances, asking them to go back to their original land was wholly unrealistic and uncalled for.
9. These petitions are not at all fit cases for this Court to interfere. They, therefore, are hereby dismissed.