1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 11-8-1969 passed in Settlement Revision No. 107 of 1969.
2. The relevant facts are that one Bagh Ali (respondent No. 3 herein), a refugee from Jammu & Kashmir State, migrated to Sialkot District. Here he filed his Q. P. R. No. 21525/811, which was verified on 16-10-1969 by the Central Record Office for 2130 Produce Index Units. It is stated that he could not get any land allotted in lieu of the above entitlement in District Sialkot. He, therefore, applied for the transfer of his Q.P.R. To Gujranwala District. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Sialkot vide his order dated 26-7-1962, allowed the transfer of the said Q. P. R. And forwarded it through Registered Parcel No. 55, dated 28-7-1962 to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Gujranwala. They said Bagh Ali was allowed 62 kanals 8 marlas of agricultural land in village Mandhrr on 24-9-1962 against his 200 Produce Index Units. The remaining units were transferred to other villages in the same District viz. Akbar Gha--noki, Kingarwali and Bharoki Virkan at which places be also secured allotment.
3. The trouble with which the present appellants are faced relates to the allotment occurring in a village other than the one concerned, namely, Bharoki Virkan. In this village one Rao Alam Sher, the sitting allotee of the village challenged an allotment ostensibly made in favour of Bagh Ali by filing an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which was rejected. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Ch. Ali Ahmad). Bagh Ali appeared before Ch. Ali Ahmad and made a statement on 8-6-1964 in the following terms:---- On the basis of the above statement, learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner accepted the revision petition and cancelled the allotment of Bagh Ali in village Bharoki Virkan.
4. How--ever, Bagh Ali accepts that the allotments made in favour of Bagh Ali in the other three villages, namely, in village Mandhir, Kingar--wali and Akbar Ghanoki were genuinely made in his favour. No dispute has arisen about the allotment in village Akbar Ghanoki but the allotments made in his favour in village Mandhir and village Kingarwali have become a subject-matter of litigation. The present appeal (C. A. No. 75/70) is in relation to the allotment made in village Kingarwali, while the connected Civil Appeal (C. A. No. 76/70) concerns the allotment made in village Mandhir.
5. Coming now to the dispute which has arisen in connection with the allotment in village Kingarwali it may be stated on 26-I1-1966 an area measuring 53 kanals 16 marlas was allotted to Bagh Ali in village Kingarwali. One Ali Nawaz alleging to be the attorney of Bagh Ali respondent No. 3 sold the land to Yasin, Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Hanif. When Bagh Ali came to know about this alienation in favour-of Yasin and others, he filed an appeal in the Court of Collector, Gujranwala.
6. The Collector, Gujranwala rejected the appeal, Bagh Ali then filed a revision petition before the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), who accepted the same and rejected the mutation in favour of Yasin and others. Bagh Ali then sold this land by a registered sale-deed dated 10-6-1967 to the appellants herein.
7. Amin Khan, Sakhi Muhammad and Bagh Hussain, respondents Nos. 1-3 herein, filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persous (Land Settlement) Act which came up for hearing before Capt. Mohabbat Khan, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner. The learned Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settle--ment Commissioner relying upon the statement of Bagb Ali made before Ch. Ali Ahmad to the effect that he has not transferred his units from Sialkot to Gujranwala accepted the application and cancelled the allotment of Bagh Ali in village Kingarwali vide his order dated 14-7-1969.
8. Aggrieved by the above order, the present appellants along with the said Bagh Ali filed a Settlement Revision in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, but the same was dismissed in limine. A petition for leave to appeal was, accordingly, filed by the appellants herein against the said order. As Bagh Ali did not join their appeal he was impleaded as respondent and has been cited as such at No. 7 herein.
9. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Bagh Ali's statement dated 8-6-1964 related only to the allotment of certain lands in his favour in village Bharoke and was in no way concerned with the lands in other village inter alia Kingarwali, Mandhir and Akbar Ghanoki and the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the allotment of Bagh Ali on the basis of the aforesaid statement which was confined to village Bharoke alone. This Court heard this appeal on 7-11-1975 and reserved the judgment and also summoned the record of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Sialkot, relating to the transfer of Claim Form No. 21525/841 of the Bagh Ali from District Sialkot to District Gujranwala. It was also directed that it be certified whether any land was allotted to the said Bagh Ali in lieu of the said claim in District Sialkot. The relevant record has been received and has been perused by us. The Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Sialkot, addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court on 24-1-1976 which is in the following terms :-- "From The Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot.
10. To The Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Rawalpindi.
11. No. H C (E)/30Dated 24-1-1976 Subject:-Case Appeals Nos. 75 & 76 of 1970 (Nawah and another v. Amin Khan and others).
12. Sir, Reference your Letter No. C.A.S. 75, 76/70-SCJ, dated the 4th December, 1975.
(2) It is intimated that the original papers relating to the transfer of claim No. 21525/841 of Mr. Bagh Din (Bagh Ali) son of Taj Din, resi--dent of Fateh Garb, District Sialkot, had already been sent to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala vide this office endorsement No. 107 through registered Parcel No. 55 dated 28-7-1962. As such no other record of this claim is available, in this District. However, the statements of the said claimant and the Numbardar of the said village regarding non-allotment of land in Sialkot District recorded by the Settlement Tehsildar, Sialkot along with the affi--davit of Bagh Ali attested by the Oath Commissioner Sialkot are cancelled.
13. (Sd.)
14. For Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot.".
15. This letter along with the documents placed at pages 32, 33 and 34 in the connected Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1970 has convinced us that Bagh Ali, indeed, did get his claim transferred from District Sialkot to District Gujranwala and that the said Bagh Ali has not obtained any allotment in District Sialkot. Consequently, the allotments made in his favour in District Gujranwala. Except that made in village Bharoki, were not liable to interference and further that the statement made by him in connection with the allotment in village Bharoke could not be extended to the allotment made in village, Mandhir and Kingarwali.
16. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and that of the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14-7-1969 and restore the allotment made in favour of Bagh Ali.
17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.