SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.-Mitts and Allah Ditta sons of Phuman owned some landed property in village Lahore, Majra in Nabha State which is now a part of India. Allah Ditta died issueless and his estates had devolved on Mitta his brother. Mitta also died during the Indepen--dence disturbances and his widow Mst. Bhago and his son Habib came to Pakistan. As they had surrendered some land in India they submitted their claim Form No. 672 wherein some land was claimed in lieu of what had been abandoned by them in India. Their claim was verified by the Central Record Office and approved but in the course of such verification, the Central Record Office also found two other persons namely Fatta and Natha who were also the sons of Phuman of Nabha State and their claim was also verified. The claim of Mst. Bhago and her son Habib was sent to Multan but in the course of allotment, not only the present appellants namely Mst. Bhago and Habib. But the two other persons named Fatta and Natha, on the assumption that they were also the sons of Phuman, were also given shares. Fatta and Natha are dead but their legal representatives do not figure anywhere. The two appellants were allotted land in the estate of Jodhpur, Tehsil Kabirwala District Multan and a mutation of inheritance, as per the requirement, was also got ' attested in favour of the appellants. Incidentally, they were also shown as successor-in-interest of Fatta and Natha with whom they had no connection. The appellants felt satisfied but a complaint was made against them by some informer and investigation was made by the Enforcement Staff and the case was sent to Martial Law Authorities under M. L. R. No. 49. The Martial Law Authorities declined to pro-- ceed against the appellants and some others in a Martial Law Court, but at the same time, the area allotted to the appellants in lieu of their claim No. 672 was confiscated and ordered to be resumed on account of un authorised allotment/possession. The allotment thus made in favour of the L. Rs. Of Mitta and Allah Ditta was cancelled. That land, as it appears, was later allotted to Masitay Khan etc. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mst. Bhago and her son Habib (present appellants) then filed a writ petition in the High Court' of West Pakistan against cancellation of that allot--ment but their petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Later Mst. Bhago and her son submitted a representation to Martial Law Administrator Zone B'. It was forwarded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for favourable consideration. A request was made for the restoration of the area, which had earlier been allotted to the L. Rs. Of Mitta and Allah Ditta. In obedience to the orders of the Martial Law Authorities, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was obliged to take further action in the matter. However, during inquiry, it was found that the present two appellants were entitled to the land, which should have been allotted to Mitta and Allah Ditta and not to that part, to which Natha and Fatta were held to be entitled. But as indicated above; the L. Rs. Of Fatta and Natha had not taken any interest and therefore, the transfer made in their favour was cancelled. Moreover, it was also found on verification that these two appellants had nothing to do with Natha and Fatta.
2. So far as Mst. Bhago and Habib appellants are concerned. Deputy Secretary (Rural) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, issued memorandum No. 76-W/CRO, dated 26-2-1966, for further inquiry and scrutiny by mutation Attesting Officer. He wrote that "the matter has been examined". It appears that the Fard-e-Haqiats issued in the names of Mitta and Allah Ditta by the Central Record Office were correct, but Fard-e-Haqiats of Natha and Fatta were wrongly issued as the names of the father of all the four claimants were same (Phuman). The Farde-e---Haqiats of the latter two right-holders (Fatta and Natha) be deemed to stand cancelled and the same be returned to the Central Record Office for consignment. As regards the land verified in the names of Mitta and Allah Ditta, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has directed that you should proceed to decide the mutations of inheritance afresh and thereafter if earlier allotment has been cancelled, alternate land or a part of it (according to the correct entitlement), if still available may be re---allotted or allotted to successors". Being dissatisfied with this order Mst. Bhago submitted a fresh application before the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner on 25-5-1966 wherein she complained that the petitioners stand harmed and the local officers in spite of petitioners' best efforts have not taken any action and were reluctant to examine the case of the petitioners sympathetically and correctly and to restore the area which had been taken away from them in pursuance of the order of the Martial Law Authorities. They claimed that they were permanently residing in Jodhpur since 1947 and had been allotted land in this very village against their claim Form No. 672 and which area had been verified. They prayed that since the order of confiscation of their land was no longer in force therefore, they may be restored the land already allotted to them. In a nutshell, their prayer was that "It is, therefore, respect--fully prayed that local Deputy Commissioner may be asked to examine the disposal of our lawful allotted area to the extent of ours bare under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and to restore the allotment to the extent of petitioners shares". The dele--gate Settlement Commissioner (Land) who had been entrusted with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land), in his capacity as such, examined the whole case thoroughly after hearing both the sides who participated in the proceedings and he came to the conclusion that the matter has been substantially decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself whose directions had been conveyed in memo. No. 76/CRO/66, dated 26-2-1966 which were to the effect that as regards the land verified in the names of Mitta and Allah Ditta was concerned, the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, was directed to proceed and decide the mutation of inheritance afresh, and thereafter if earlier allotment had been cancelled, alternate land or the same land or a part of it (according to correct entitlement), if still available may be re-allotted or allotted to the successors of Mitta and Allah Ditta. Necessity for this conclusion had arisen because it was pointed out to Sardar Hidayatullah Khan, Settlement Commissioner that Masitay Khan present respondent No. 1 had been allotted property which had been cancelled from the name of Fatta and not that, which was standing in the names of Mitta and Allah Ditta whose inheritance Mst. Bhago and Habib claimed through deceased Ibrahim. The delegate Chief Settlement Commissioner was mindful of the provisions of section 11 of the Dis-- placed Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and proceedings under that provision of law. He held that the prayer of Mst. Bhago and Habib in their application was only to the extent that the local Deputy Commissioner may be asked to examine the disposal of their lawful allotted area to the extent of their share, and it appeared to him quite reasonable and he consequently accepted their prayer and directed the Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, to proceed to decide the mutation of inheritance afresh and thereafter if earlier it had been cancelled, the same land may be restored to the petitioners after cancelling the same from the names of the subsequent allottees.
3. It will be appreciated that the original order of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner by which the allotment made in favour of the pre--sent appellants had been cancelled was not taken with reference to sec--tion 11 of the said Act but it was a directive from the Martial Law Authorities, which had to be obeyed. After Martial Law Authorities directed him that the allotment be restored or a fresh action may be taken, he had no option to act otherwise but to proceed with the case and decide it on merits.
4. This order of Sardar Hidayatullah Khan was challenged by the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the High Court at Lahore through Settlement Revision No. 110 of 1967. A Division Bench of that Court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Settlement Com--missioner
(Land) exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner dated 26-2-1966. They consequently accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated 26-2-1967.
5. Ex parte proceedings had been taken against the present respondents but they appeared today and made a request that the ex parte action may be cancelled against them and they may be allowed to defend this appeal. They were allowed to do so from this stage onwards. We have heard the arguments addressed before us by the learned counsel for the parties and we have also carefully considered the record of the case.
6. Pursuant to the order of the Martial Law Authorities, the Settle--ment and Rehabilitation Authorities cancelled the entire allotment without giving an opportunity to the present appellants to be heard. Martial Law Authorities declined to try the present two appellants and some others in case F. I. R. No. 104 dated 12-8-1960. The two appel--lants were accordingly tried by a criminal Court but they were acquitted by an order, dated 17-11-1962. Thereafter, they moved the Martial Law Authorities and explained the facts to them and made a request for the restoration of their land.
Thereafter the Martial Law Authorities referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
After waiting for sometime, the appellants moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner through another application on 5-5-1963 and it was in pursuit of that application that the appellants acquired the aforementioned order from the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 26-2-1966. Sardar Hidayatullah Khan, in the impugned order did not review the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner referred to above. Taking further action and making necessary inquiry, he held that the request of the present appellants, that if otherwise held to be entitled to, was reasonable and if earlier allotment made in favour of the petitioners had been cancel--led, the same land - may be restored to them after cancelling the same from the names of the subsequent allottees. The learned counsel for the respondents complains that the cancellation of the land had also been thoroughly affected and the respondents were the innocent allottees, therefore, their allotment could not be cancelled. The earlier allotment in favour of the appellants had been cancelled, as indicated above under the orders of the Martial Law Authorities who confiscated their land and later when they cancelled the confiscation order, the position was restored, however, if in the meantime the whole of that land or any part of that was allotted to the respondents, it was sub--ject to the condition that the previous confiscation order was kept intact. But if no proceedings had been taken under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Settlement of Land) Act, 1958 and as it appears different, then the subsequent order of the Martial Law Authorities to cancel that confiscation would obviously mean that the original allotment order was kept alive. In that view of the matter the disputed order of the Settlement Commissioner acting under the delegated powers of the Chie Settlement Commissioner and also under section 11 of the said Act would not appear to be wrong.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 argued that the land allotted to the respondents was different from the land allotted to Mitta and Allah Dittar if so, it would mean that the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner acting under the delegated powers, would not affect them and they would not be entitled to claim that they are aggrieved persons. In view of the above we are of the view that the order of the Lahore High Court in Settlement Revision No. 110 of 1967 is not correct. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside 'the impugned order of the High Court dated 21-1-1972 with costs.