' This petition arises out of an order dated 24th November, 1969 whereby the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground that on the basis of the record received from Bekaneer (India) they had no entitlement to hold on to the property already allotted to them.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners hale from Bekaneer, an area now included in India. It was an agreed area, but the Special Jamabandis, from the place, with regard to which the petitioners claim, had not been received. Consequently the petitioners' claims remained unverified.
It was ultimately on 16th April, 1959 that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, authorised the Central Record Office, to verify the claims of such persons in accordance with the procedure adopted for the non-agreed areas. Consequently, the, petitioners' claims were verified on the evidence of two persons and they were allotted land in lieu thereof in village Meeru Balooch, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. It is stated that the entitlement verified in favour of the petitioners is less than 1500 P. I. U. In each case. Subsequently, somebody made a complaint to the Revenue Authorities that according to the Special Jamabandis received later, the petitioners had no entitlement at all, and that land allotted in their favour was unlawful. The case was consequently referred to the Additional Deputy Commissioner who, after hearing the petitioner on 26th September, 1969 cancelled their allotment. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed. The petitioners now challenge the cancellation of their allotment in this writ petition.
3. The main ground taken by the petitioners is that neither the Central Record Office nor the Settlement authorities followed the instructions as contained in letter No, 1006-63/2071-R (L) dated 12th April, 1963 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. According to these instructions it was specifically noticed that verifications in favour of certain persons from agreed areas had been made in accordance with the procedure adopted for the claimants of ncn-agreed areas. It was further stated that on the receipt of the Special Jamabandis from India about such areas the Central Record Office had passed orders cancelling the allotments of these persons who bad no entitlement. It was directed that the allotments already made in such cases should not be cancelled and such allottees may be subjected to the progressive cut as prescribed in para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation 89.
4. According to this formula the persons who had been found entitled to less than 1500 P. I. U. Were ordered to be allowed full entitlement.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contested the petitioners' claim on the ground that they were not entitled to any benefit at all in view of para. 4, Part 1, Chapter II and para. 29 of Part 2 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable. The Chief Settlement Commissioner did, in 1963, direct that the allotments already made should not be reviewed and that the procedure adopted for claimants of non-agreed areas under Martial Law Regulation 89, b applied to such cases. In the circumstances the suo motu scrutiny by the Central Record Office, out of which the Robkar for cancellation of the allotment was issued, and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner were not lawful. The petitioners have also produced before m an uncertified copy of a judgment in Writ Petition No, 371-K-70 delivered by my learned brother K. M. A. Samadani, J. In which the same question was considered and the allotment in favour of the petitioner restored.
' For the reasons stated above this petition succeeds. The orders of the Central Record Office and that of the Settlement authorities cancelling the allotment of the petitioners are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the petitioners' allotment shall stand restored.