1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 54 of 1971, dated the 12th April 1971. By this order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition summarily.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of agricultural land measuring 164 kanals and 2 marlas in village Golotian, Tehsil Daska. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they were allotted land in excess of their entitlement to the extent of 494 P. I. Units. It is also not disputed that the Settlement authorities are entitled to cancel the excess area which has been obtained by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that in appeal, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner vide his order dated the 3rd August 1962, has accepted the appeal and set aside the cancellation of the excess land on condition that according to Letter No. F. 3(11)/60-S-311 dated.
3. The 14th April 1961, the excess land has been sold to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 8 per P. 1, unit and they were entitled to retain the excess land on the payment of the price referred to above, The sale price was to be deposited by them in 17 installments. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, by order dated the 15th March 1970, has not accepted the order of sale and has cancelled the excess area and withdrawn it from the allotment of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order in the above-mentioned revision petition which has been dismissed by the High Court. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against this order.
4. In support of the petition, Ch. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the land was sold to the petitioners under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and after its sale the Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the land from the allotment of the petitioners. The learned counsel referred to section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and contended that under its proviso the allotment of the land was protected. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. -Admittedly, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner has sold the excess land to the petitioners in view of the copy of letter No. F. 3(II)-60-S-11 dated the 14th April 1961, issued from the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works. This letter was explained in letter No. 6358-62/66428-R (L) dated the 1st July 1965. It was pointed out in that letter that the instructions relating to the disposal of land allotted and held in excess of entitlements is applicable only in the districts comprising the old N.-W. F. P. And Sind regions. It was not applicable to the land situated in Punjab. In view of this letter, the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner was clearly illegal and he could not transfer the land in dispute to the petitioners. The Additional Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, quite competent to set aside this sale and to cancel the allotment of the excess land from the allotment of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to refer us to any provision of law under which the sale by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner could be upheld. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any illegality which calls for interference by this Court.
5. We may, however, add that under letter No. 7511-66/239-R (L) dated the 6th May 1966, it is open to the Settlement authorities in specially deserving cases not to resume the land from an allottee who has obtained excess land and to sell the land to him at a price fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is open to the petitioner to move the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf.
6. Subject to the above remarks, the petition is dismissed.