1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Mohammad Zia Qureshi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1-7 migrated from Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, East Punjab to Pakistan during the disturbances attendant on the creation of Pakistan. According to the petitioner herein the said Mohammad Zia Qureshi, in lieu of 2 Bighas 11 Biswa s of land abandoned by him in East Punjab, managed to obtain the verification of 93 Bighas 18 Biswas through misrepresentation and fraud and obtained the allotment of land in village Sohna, Tehsil Shuja Abad, District Multan on that basis. The petitioner, therefore, filed a mukhbari application on 29-3-1974 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The same was forwarded to the A. D. C/Addi--tional Settlement Commissioner, Multan. The learned Additional Settle--ment Commissioner took the cognizance of the matter and assumed the jurisdiction therein on 4-5-1974 and then adjourned the matter for 15-5-1974, directing the petitioner herein to adduce the necessary evidence on the said date. On the date, the petitioner submitted before the Additional Settle--ment Commissioner that whereas Mohammad Zia Qureshi was an owner only of 2 Bighas 10 Biswa s of land in Mauza Atraf Ansar, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal he had, through misrepresentation and fraud, got an area measuring 91 Bighas 1 Biswas owned by Mohammad Ishaque treated as belonging to him and in this manner obtained verification of 93 Bighas 18 Biswa s through fraud. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner ordered that a report be obtained on these allegations from the Central Record Office. The requisite report .In this behalf was duly made by the Central Record Room on 8-6-1974 which was submitted to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. On 13-6-1974, the petitioner learnt that Mohammad Zia Qureshi had died on 5-4-1971 leaving respondents 1-7 as his legal heirs. He, therefore, moved an application on 22-6-1974 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner to implead the legal heirs of Muhammad Zia Qureshi as parties. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner impleaded the said respondents 1-7 as parties vide his order dated 27-6-1974 and further directed that notice be issued to them. The matter was still pending when the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed with effect from 1-7-1974.
2. The matter ultimately came up for hearing before the successor of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, who, by his order dated 7-5-1975, dismissed the application on the sole ground that it could not be proceeded against a dead person. The petitioner herein, therefore, filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 684-R/75) which was heard by a learned Single Judge (G. M. Mirza, J.), who, vide his order dated 13-11-1975 dismissed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was an informer as such had no vested right either before the Settlement authorities or before the High Court. It was just a matter of concession for the informer to lay information which was within his knowledge and the dismissal of such an application gave him no right to agitate the matter in writ jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L. P. A. No. 201/75) which was also dismissed on 23-12-1975 on the short ground that it was not competent under the proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The order dated 23-12-1975 passed by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench that the appeal was not competent under the Proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 does not appear to suffer from any infirmity and hence .The petition for leave to appeal against the said order has no force. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition is directed also against the original order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-11-1975 and the petition is within time so far as that order is concerned. The said order, it is submitted, is not tenable. In this connection, it is argued that the view of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner, being merely an informer, has no vested right and it only was concession for the informer to lay information which did not enable him to challenge the order refusing to act on that information was not the correct view of the law. In fact, the right to transfer evacuee property was statutorily recognised by insertion of sec--tion 14 (1-A) in the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and continued by later enactments and pending cases of informer were saved and continued as before by the Repealing Act XIV of 1975. Consequently, the contention that informer has no right to challenge an order rejecting his application was not tenable. Reliance is placed on PLD 1980 SC 222 and PLD1979SC846.
4. This contention, inter alia, requires consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
6. To be made ready on the present record with leave to the parties to add such further documents as they consider necessary and are relevant: