1. ' This writ petition by the purchaser of land for consideration from a displaced person calls in question the order of a Notified Officer with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 15-8-1978, whereby land in village Rangilpur, Tehsil and District Lahore, was cancelled after holding that area equivalent to 570 P.I. Us. Had been obtained by the claimant in excess of his entitlement.
2. The area so resumed was ordered to be allotted to informants.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased land from Nazim Ali, a claimant about ten years ago in village Rangilpur, Tehsil and District Lahore. On 30-4-1974, respondents Nos.
3. 2 to 6 filed two Mukhbari applications claiming that there was excess allotment in the khatas of said claimant. These Mukhbari applications related to allotments of Khata Nos. 342, 199 and 226 of the said village. Against the balance of entitlement of Nazim Ali, on 24-4-1975, further land equal to 565 P.I. Us. Was allotted at R.L. II Khata No, 533 of the same village. The case set up by the vendee is two-fold. Firstly; it is urged that the correct entitlement of Nazim Ali worked out to be 1879 P.I. Us. It is alleged that the Settlement Commissioner despite evidence having come on the record failed to take into consideration the correction slip P.I. No, 152 dated 8-3-1958 whereby it was provided that in respect of claims from District Gurgawan, the area under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 described as Ghair Mumkin Pahar was to be treated equivalent in classification to Bhud. It has further been pointed out that for the classification of the land in the category of Chair Mumkin Pahar. The P.I.
4. Value was nine units whereas in respect of the classification of Bhud the entitlement was to be worked out on the basis of 26 P.I, Us. It is thus submitted that the entitlement of the claimant in respect of 48 Bighas and 17 Biswa s of land in respect of District Gurgawan which was entered as Ghair Mumkin Pahar had been calculated on the erroneous basis. It is further submitted that entitlement was incorrectly assumed by the Settlement Commissioner at 1976 P.1. Us. In support of this submission, reliance is being placed on the statement of Rahimud-Din Patwari, Central Record Room recorded on 24th of March, 1977. I have seen the statement of the Patwari wherein he has clearly stated that the claimant had 51 Bighas and 2 Biswas of Ghair Mumkin area out of which 48 Bighas and 17 Biswa s was Ghair Mumkin Pahar. The Correction Slip No, 152 dated 8-3-1959 would thus govern the evaluation of the claim of Nazim Ali. This appears not to have been kept in view which amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction and constitute an obvious illegality.
5. ' The second submission of the learned counsel is that allotment of R.L. II Khata No, 342 equivalent to 260 P.I Us. Was illegally taken.Into consideration though no allotment subsisted in favour of the claimant as the same was either cancelled earlier or stood excluded. It has been urged that even the area which stood allotted has not been correctly classified or evaluated as per law governing the subject. It is urged that Khasra Nos. 1529, 1590, 1305, 1306, 1308 and 1309 have been wrongly evaluated under a misconception.
3. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 opposing this writ petition submitted that the first allotment in favour of respondent No, 7 was made on R.L. H Khata No, 199 equivalent to 944 P.1. Us. In the year 1955. According to him, the second allotment was made on 15-9-1976 at R. L. II Khata No, 226 equivalent 418 units. He submits that the Notified Officer in his impugned order has incorrectly ascribed the total number of units consumed at this khata as 260. He further stated that allotment at R.L. II Khata No, 342 was made on 13-1-1958 equivalent to 260 P. I. Us. And at R.L. II Khata No, 533, area was allotted in the name of Nazim Ali in the year 1975 equivalent to 565 P.1. Us. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents thus has worked out the area allotted in favour of the claimant as being equivalent to 1927 P.I Us. As against his entitlement of 18(0 P. I. Us. The calculations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 944+ 418+565 equivalent to 1927.
6. According to him at any rate, 127 units were in excess, As against this the Notified Officer has worked out the area allotted in favour of the claimant. Nazim as follows:- R.L. II Khata No, 199 944 P.I. Us.
7. R.L. II Khata No, 226 260 P.I. Us.
8. R.L. II Khata No, 342 418 P.1. Us.
9. R.L. II Khata No, 533 565 P.I. Us, ' finding of the Settlement Commissioner is also being strenuously assailed by the petitioner as being based on incorrect assumptions. ' thus totalling 2187 P.I. Us. He has also worked out the claimant's entitlement as 1719 u nits.
10. ' For the purpose of the P.I. Value of the area allotted the Notified Officer has come to the conclusion that land measuring 51/61 kanals 16 marlas allotted at R.L. II comprising Khasra Nos. 1589, 1590, 1305, 1306, 1308 and 1309 were not Banjar Jadid but Sailabi. According to him, therefore, on account of this incorrect classification, there was allotment of 179 P.I Us. In excess than what had been shown.
11. This
4. I have considered the arguments of both sides and have carefully gone through the record. I find that the Settlement Commissioner has not taken into account Correction Slip P. I. No, 152 dated 8- 3-1959 as a result of which the claimant's entitlement has not been correctly worked out. Similarly, as regards allotment at R. L. II Khata No, 342, the record that some of the area shown at this Khata had been cancelled on the statement of the nephew of the claimant. There is further note on the said Khata to the effect that the remaining numbers were also excluded because they had already been allotted at R.L. II Khatas mentioned in the note. The factual position whether allotment at R.L.
12. Khata No, 342 was in existence or not could easily be ascertained by the Notified Officer on a careful scrutiny of the record which would have shown whether these khasra numbers were in possession of the claimant and he had been enjoying the fruit thereof or as contended by the petitioner the same stood excluded and thus were not liable to be taken into A consideration. A mere reference to the other R.L. II registers or a list of Baqayajat coupled with the revenue record would have enabled him to come to a determinative finding. This does not appear to-have been done with the result that factual inaccuracies have crept in the impugned order which have material bearing and constitute grounds for the decision. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 15-8-1979 is liable to be set aside. The learned Notified Officer has failed to apply his conscious mind to all the relevant facts and the record and has left matters undetermined which affected the valuable rights of the claimant right holder in respect of his allotment and resultantly worked to the prejudice of a bona fide purchaser for consideration. I would, therefore, declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. The Notified Officer in remand shall work out correct entitlement of the claimant after taking into account Correction Slip P.I. No, 152 dated 8-3-1959. He would also correctly evaluate the land comprising khasra numbers mentioned in para. 3 of his impugned order. Similarly, he would also find out whether land at Khata No, 342 in fact subsists in allotment in the name of the claimant and, if so, how much is the area and what is its produce index value. He would also refer to the record to find out the disposal of these khasra numbers by reference to other Khatas, the revenue record as well as the list- of Baqayajat maintained for the purpose. The total entitlement of the claimant would be worked out afresh and so would the area allotted and its produce index value to find out if there was any excess area liable to cancellation. The petitioner and the respondents shall also be heard. The writ petition is accepted with costs.