1. DORAS PATEL, J.-Respondents 8 and 9 in this review petition were displaced persons who had filed a claim for land in village Aulakh Thal Jand! In Muzaffargarh District and after verification of the claims land measur--ing 3662 kanals and 1 marls was confirmed in their favour. By registered sale deeds dated 10-4-1968, these respondents sold the land confirmed in their favour to the first two respondents, namely, Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Haq (hereinafter referred to as the vendees). Three years later, the third and the fourth respondents filed an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the said Act) and sought cancellation of the land transferred to respondents 8 and 9 on the ground that their claim forms were bogus. After a full enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, who was exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dismissed these applications by his order dated 31st March, 1971 (hereinafter called the said order). Despite the said order, another set of informers, namely, respondents 5, 6 and 7 filed fresh applications under sections 10 and I1 of the said Act for the cancellation of the land confirmed in favour of respondents 8 and 9 and it would appear that these applications were pressed on the same grounds as the earlier applications. Notices were again issued to respondents 8 and 9 to show cause why their confirmed allotments should not be cancelled, therefore, the vendees filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court to challenge the fresh notices issued to respondents 8 and 9, and the submission in these petitions was that these notices were barred by the said order which had become final. The informers also filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court to challenge the said order of 31st March 1971. But these writ petitions were heard together and a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court held that as the said order had become final, therefore, he dismissed the writ petition of the informers and allowed the writ petitions filed by the vendees.
2. After this judgment of the Lahore High Court, as the petitioner issued a fresh notice to respondents 8 and 9 to show cause why their confirmed allotments should not be cancelled. Abdul Haq, one of the vendees filed a writ petition for the second time in the Lahore High Court to challenge the validity of this notice, and as this writ petition was allowed, the petitioner filed a petition for leave in this Court which was admitted in order to examine inter aria the question whether the case against respondents 8 and 9 could be re-opened under sections 10 and 11 of the said Act in view of the fact that the said order had attained finality.
3. This question was decided against the petitioner, because the Court was of the view that the impugned notice was based on the same allegations which had been examined and rejected by the said order, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on 26-10-1976. However, in the course of his arguments, Mr. Maqbool Elahi submitted that the petitioner wanted to take action against its staff and to issue a fresh notice to respondents 8 and 9, because fresh evidence of fraud had been discovered. In support of the claim to issue a fresh notice on the basis of fresh evidence, learned counsel relied on this Court's judgment reported in The Chief' Settlement Commissioner v. Raja Muhammad Fazal Khan (PLD 1975 SC 331), and whilst dismissing the appeal, the Court had observed that the petitioner was free to take action against its staff, and it was also observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who had passed the said order, would be free to reopen the case against respondents 8 and 9 on the basis of fraud as alleged, but not on the ground of the correctness of the entitlement of these respondents. However, whilst the observation about the petitioner's right to take action against its staff was incorporated in the judgment, the latter observation was not, therefore, the petitioner has filed this review petition, and the prayer in it is that the Court's observation about the Chief Settlement Commissioner's power to issue a fresh notice against respondents 8 and 9 be incorporated in the judgment. Mr. Arif opposed this petition and relied on the repeal of the said Act. But the effect of the repeal of the said Act is not relevant to the question whether the review is competent, and, on the other hand, if any show a notice is issued by the petitioner, the respondents concerned would be entitled to oppose it on all the grounds open to them under law. Mr. Arif then pointed out that the review petition was time-barred.
4. That is correct but the petitioner has furnished an explanation for the delay in filing this petition, the explanation being that it took time to obtain the sanction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the filing of the petition. On the peculiar~ facts of the case, we are satisfied with this explanation and condone the delay in filing the review petition.
5. Turning now to the ground on which review is sought, the note book) of one of us (Dorab Patel, J.) shows that the appeal was dismissed with the observation that if the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who passed the B said order, wanted to reopen the case on the ground of a fresh fraud, and not on the ground of the correctness of the entitlement of respondents 8 and 9, then he was free to do so. Accordingly, we allow the review and direct that this observation be incorporated in the Court's judgment of 26-10-1976.