' GHAZANFAR ALI GONDAL, J.-This is an L. P. A. From order dated 30-10-1968 of Single Bench of this Court dismissing W. P. No, 1109/R/63, filed by appellant Ali Bakhsh alongwith 20 others.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Ali Bakhsh is a displaced person from India. He was allotted the disputed land in Chak No, 15 Gajjiani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar on temporary basis on 20-10-1947. Other displaced persons were also allotted agricultural land situated in Chaks Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 Gajjiani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar on temporary basis for maintenance purposes during 1947-48. On 30-4-1959 notices were issued by Tehsildar exercising powers of A. S. C., Chishtian informing the said temporary allottees that areas held by Ali Bakhsh and others in temporary allotment in Chaks Nos. 14, 15 and 16 Gajjiani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar were urban in character and they had entitlement for rural area only and quasi-permanent allotment of land could not be made to them and they should get their rural claims transferred to some rural area failing which he will himself transfer the said claims. W. P. No, 412/59 was filed on 27-7-1959 in the High Court by temporary aliottees of said Chak No, 15 Gajjiani headed by one Khair Din on the ground that evacuee land comprised in their temporary allotment in Chak No, 15 Gajjiani was not urban area. On 29.9-1959 a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Bashir Ahmad and Mr. Justice B. Z. Kaikaus dismissed the said writ petition with the following observation : "In view of the report that the land involved answers the description of urban agricultural land to which petitioners are not entitled, we see no force in this writ petition and dismiss the same."
' The Tehsildar/A. R. C./A. S. C., Chishtian allotted the following areas in Chak No, 15 Gajjiani as urban land to the following persons on dates noted against their urban entitlement :- {{TABLE TEXT}} AreaDate Sr. No.Name of allotteeof allotment
1. Jamil Asghar (Respondent No. 11)399-417-2-1959
2. Mst. Bilqis Khizer--- 3)308-017-2-1959
3. Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din (predecessor of respondents Nos. 4 to 10)400-02-1-1960 4.Mst. Zuhra Ashraf (respondent No. 2).300-09-5-1960 {{TABLE TEXT}}
3. On 12-9-1960, Murad Ali & others of Chaks Nos. 14, 15 and 16 Gajjiani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar filed a revision No, 245 of 1959-60 before the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner against order of Tehsildar/A. R. C./A. S. C. Alleging that the area in dispute is not urban but rural agricultural land. In this revision the respondents Mst. Zuhra Ashraf, Mst. Bilqis Khizer, Jamil Asghar and Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din, predecessor of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 to whom, as shown above, land had already been allotted, were not impleaded as parties. Appellant Ali Bakhsh was one of the petitioners in this revision. Pir Ahsan-ud-Din, the then Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated 19-11-1960 declared the said area to be rural on the basis of Gazette Notification dated 11-3-1949 of the Government of Defunct Bahawalpur State providing that the voters of these Chaks would send their representatives to the Distt. Board and part-patwar of Fard Taqseem prepared on the basis of special Jamabandi showing said land to be rural. He also relied upon 2nd proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 24 of Supplementary Scheme No, 2 (inserted vide Correction Slip No. 1 S S 2, dated 20-2-1960) presumably on the ground that even if this land was urban,' even then the appellant and other refugees who were temporary allottees of the said urban land were entitled to get the same on account of their possession of the said area for more than five years. He set aside the said order of Tehsildar as untenable and directed that temporary allotments in favour of said temporary allottees be confirmed in their names.
4. In accordance with the above order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 19-11-1960, land was confirmed to some of the said temporary allottees and Ali Bakhsh appellant was confirmed in his name his temporary allotment on 8-3-1961.
5. In consequence of the above order passed by Pir Ahsan-ud-Din, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Tehsildar, a number of urban claimants were deprived of their allotments made in these chaks. Thereupon, Sh. Iabal-ud-Din filed Writ Petition No, 447-R/61 and Jamil Asghar and Bilqis Khizer and Mst. Zuhra Ashraf filed Writ Petition No, 335-R/61 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore against order dated. 19-11-1960 passed by Pir Ahsan-ud-Din, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Mr. Justice Nazir Ahmad Mahmood called for a' report and comments in these cases. The Chief Settlement Commissioner instead of sending a report and comments informed the High Court that he wanted to review his order dated 19-11-1960 and would like to re-decide it after hearing the parties. Accordingly the writ petitions were kept pending and were adjourned to enable the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to take the proceedings he wanted to take Mr. M. H. Soofi, the successor Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner relied on notification No. 1, dated 23-2-1936 of Government of the defunct-State of Bahawalpur whereby the land of said chaks was included within the limits of Town Committee, Chishtian which was operative on 14-8-1947 and by his order dated 28-2-1963 held that the land situated in Chaks Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 Gajjiani and entire area of Chak No, 4/Ford on the northern side of `Nehr Ford' were situated within the limits of Town Committee Chishtian on 14th of August, 1947 and was, therefore, urban land. He thus declared that the said land was urban agricultural land for the purpose of Settlement Scheme and should be disposed of as such. He accordingly set aside the order dated 19-11-1960 of his predecessor and cancelled the allotment made to rural area claimants (including that of Ali Bakhsh appellant) in pursuance of said order of his predecessor. He further held that allotments obtained by Jamil Asghar, Bilqis Khizer, Zohra Ashraf and Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din made against their urban entitlements are in order and as a result of the said finding restored the same to them. He further held that the request of the respondents- temporary allottees for retention of the urban agricultural land in their possession against their rural claims appeared to be reasonable and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Bahawalnagar to examine their cases individually in the light of second proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 24 of Supplementary Scheme No, 2 and recommend each case to him provided the person concerned was sitting allotted in his own right and was in continuous possession of the urban land in his temporary allotment since 20-3-1955 and provided further that the land in question had not been allotted to any other claimant or restored to such a claimant under the said order.
6. As a consequence of the above provisional order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, writ petitions Nos. 355-R/61 and 447-R/61 were by order dated 6-10-1965 disposed of as having become infructuous on the ground that the writ petitioners had already got the relief from the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner.
7. Against the said order dated 28-2-1963 of Mr. M. H. Soofi, Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, appellant Ali Bakhsh along-with 20 others headed by one Fazal Muhammad had filed, on 30-4-1963 Writ Petition No, 1109-R/68, out of which present L. P. A. Has arisen. This writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated 30-10-1968, on the ground that so far as the case of legal representatives of Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din is concerned,, the land was confirmed in his name on 2-1-1960 i,e,., before the aforesaid second proviso was added to clause 24(2) of Supplementary Scheme No, 2, and, therefore, it could not affect the right which had already vested in Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din or his heirs and so far as other respondents, namely, Jamil Asghar, Bilqis Khizer and Zohra Ashraf are concerned, by virtue of subsequent letter namely circular memorandum No, 2773-64/3225-R (W), dated 1-7-1964, issued in continuation of circular memorandum No, 2585-63/4246-R(W), dated 26-6-1963, their quasi-permanent allotment could also not be disturbed as the said letter dated 1-7-1964 had provided that in case temporary allotment of a rural area claimant who was holding the said land for not less than 5 years had been allotted to an urban area claimant under Supplementary Scheme No, 2 on the date prior to 8.12-1960 (being the date of general Stay order), it should not be withdrawn from him and that the concession extended to real area claimants for allotment of urban agricultural land against rural verified claim could be availed of only by those rural area claimants whose temporary urban area allotments were intact on or before 8-12-1960, and had not been disposed of or allotted to any claimant under Supplementary Scheme No,
2. The learned Single Judge held on the basis of this letter that the intention of the Central Government was not to disturb the allotments made before 8-12-1960, and the allotment in favour of the said respondents having been made without any doubt before that date, were not open to any interference.
8. After the decision of the writ petition, the petitioners in the said writ petition got divided. Hamid, Ghulam Qadir and legal representatives of Umar Din, namely, Ibrahim, Khushi Muhammad and Bahoo filed L. P. A. No, 317/68, while appellant Ali Bakhsh filed the present L. P. A. No, 318/68. It is not disclosed to us as to whether the remaining 16 petitioners in that writ petition had filed any L. P. A. Or not. In L. P. A. No, 317/68 relief sought was against Sh, lqbal-tid-Din alone. In it, Ali Bakhsh the present appellant was impleaded as respondent No,
9. L. P. A. No, 317/68 came up before High Court for adjudication earlier. It was dismissed by order dated 14-11-1968 of a Division Bench of this Court. In it, contention had been raised that Mr. M. H. Soofi had no jurisdiction to pass an order under his power of suo mom review as the statutory period of 9 months for suo rnotu review under subsection (1) of section 20 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, had already expired.
The plea, however, was rejected by the said Division Bench of this Court on the ground that if the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not expressed the desire to review the previous order, the.
High Court would have itself decided the question in the writ petition and, therefore, the real question which arose for determination was as to whether the allotments made in favour of respondents were open to any exception on the basis of provisions of Settlement Scheme as it then stood. It was reiterated that if the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not withdrawn the case from the High Court for review of order dated 19-1C-1960 they (their Lordships of the Letters Patent Bench) had no hesitation in saying that the respondents would have been given the necessary relief by the High Court. Against this decision Hamid and said for persons went to Supreme Court but their Civil Appeal No, 136/1972 was also dismissed by Supreme Court on 13-12-1981. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that by dismissing the writ petition as having become infructuous on the basis of order of review passed by Mr. M. H. Soofi, the successor Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the High Court had held the previous order of Pir Ahsanud-Din, Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 19-11-1980 to be illegal, void and ineffective and upheld the subsequent order passed by Mr. M. H. Soofi which was necessary to set the record right. It was further held that the High Court had impliedly approved the decision of Mr. M. H. Soofi, the successor Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Their Lordships approved the decision of the Letters Patent Bench of Lahore High Court that the allotment in favour of Sh. Iqbal- ud-Dia was prior in time to the date of promulgation of said second proviso and was in accordance with the law as it then stood and there was no justification for Mr. Ahsan-ud-Din to interfere with the allotment and confirmation in favour of Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din. Towards the end of their judgment of the said appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following further observation :- "The High Court expressly referred to the jurisdictional defect in the order of Pir Ahsan-ud-Din as distinct from a mere erroneous decision on a question of fact and law. The impugned order of Pir Absan-udDin was wholly without jurisdiction. It was performed in such a way that the law regards it as a mere colorable exercise of jurisdiction or unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction. The act being non-existent in the eye of law amounted to a nullity. The main concern of the High Court while deciding L. P. A. No, 317 of 1968 was to examine the legality of that order and it was answered without any reservation."
9. The L. P. A. No, 318/68 filed by All Bakhsh against the same order of Single Judge as had been upheld in L. P. A. 317/68 and in subsequent appeal before Supreme Court has come up before us today for final decision. We have heard Rana Abdur Rahim learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. Abdul Manan learned counsel for private respondents.
10. At outset, learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue that. Mr. M. H. Soofi, Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order of his predecessor under subsection (1) of section 20 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 at a time when limitation period of months for suo mom revision had already expired. It was pointed out to him that the point in the present form had never been raised either before Mr. M. H. Soofi, Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner or in the writ petition or at the hearing before the learned Judge in Chambers or in the memorandum of L. P. A. And could not be allowed to be argued for the first time at the hearing of this L. P. A. It was further pointed out to him that the High Court had already given a findin in L. P. A. No, 317/68 filed by co-petitioners of the appellant and Suprem Court of Pakistan had approved that finding that if the Chief Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner had not withdrawn the case from High Court the High Court would have itself, without any doubt, came to the conclusion arrived at by Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and would have granted the necessary relief to respondents therein and that in view of this finding, it is quite clear that the said question of limitation was of no consequence.
Furthermore Sh. Abdul Manan, counsel for private respondents vigorously argued that quasi- permanent allotment of disputed land bad been made to said respondents prior to 12-9-1960, the date of presentation of revision petition before Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and, therefore, said respondents were necessary parties in the said revision but they had not been impleaded therein as respondents and the order which had been passed without hearing them and without giving due consideration to their rights in the land in question was an ex parte order and could not be regarded as a final order qua the said respondents and as soon as the Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner came to know from averments made in writ petitions 355/R/61 and 447/R/61 that said order had been passed ex parte, he indicated his desire to consider and bad actually considered the matter afresh after hearing the said respondents and, therefore, as held in case of Haft Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others (1), in setting aside his order dated 28-24963, the earlier view {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1963 SC 311 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' which his predecessor-in-office had tentatively expressed, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had not in reality acted in review of the previous order of his predecessor. The learned counsel Sh. Abdul Mena further submitted that the former Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had passed his order without taking into consideration the notification of 1936 which was in operation on 15th August, 1947 and was the only valid material for decision of the question raised before him and, therefore, the said order of former Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was a nullity in the eye of law and Supreme Court had also, as shown above, in penultimate paragraph of its decision in civil appeal No, 136 of 1972 held the said order of former Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to be a nullity and as such there was no question of limitation. In face of these considerations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his point further and has virtually withdrawn it by taking a stand that notification of 1936 being definitely in the field on 14-8-1947, the said land was undoubtedly urban in character.
The point of invalidity of later order of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground of limitation is, therefore, repelled.
11. Rana Abdur Rabin], learned counsel for the appellant does not now contest in this L. P. A. The finding of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner that the disputed land was urban agricultural land. He accepts that the said land is urban, but he questions the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in cancelling the allotments made to appellant rural area claimant in pursuance of earlier order of his predecessor and restoring allotments obtained by private respondents against their urban entitlements as well as his direction prohibiting the D. S. C. From considering the case of appellant for grant of benefit to him under second proviso to subsection (2) of clause 24 of Supplementary Scheme No,
2. Furthermore, he challenges the impugned order of the learned Judge in Chambers upholding the said portion of the said judgment of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. In that connection he has submitted the following points finally :-
(1) That permanent allotment obtained by respondents were subsequtnt to the date of promulgation of the said second proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 24 of Supplementary Scheme No, 2 on 20th February, 1960, and were in derogation of rights of appellant under the second proviso but the Chief Settlement Commissioner had in his order dated 28-2-1963 failed to consider the effect of said second proviso on the case of the appellant and had arbitrarily held that the said allotments were in order and were liable to be restored to the respondents.
(ii) That appellant was allotted the land of his temporary allotment on 8-3-1961 in consequence of the order dated 19-11-1960 of the predecessor Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and the said allotment dated 8-3-1981 was confirmed allotment and it was in operation, therefore, benefit of letter dated 26-6-1953 (whereby displaced persons qualifying under said second proviso were as a matter of general policy to be permitted to retain, against their rural verified entitlement, their temporary urban allotments to the extent of reduced retainable limit specified in the said letter) had to be extended to. The appellant.
(iii) That the appellant was covered by the general stay order issued on 8.12-1960 which visualised that the rural claimants whose temporary allotments subsisted on 8.12-1960 could not be disturbed and since the appellant's temporary allotment was subsisting on that day, the said temporary allotment could not have been taken away.
(iv) That according to the settled principles of law, the appellant's case which started in 1959/60 should have been decided in accordance with the law prevalent in 1959/60 while the learned Judge in Chambers had upheld the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the basis of subsequent explanatory letter dated 1-7-1964 which was not in operation on the date when Mr. Soofi made the order.
' We have considered the above points but are afraid we are unable to subscribe to any one of these.
12. So far point No. 1 is concerned, as shown above, confirmation of disputed land in favour of all the urban area claimants was not subsequent to the date of promulgation of 2nd proviso. Jamil Asghar, Bilqis Khizer and Sh. Iqbal-ud-Din got allotments respectively on 17-2-1959, 17-2-1959 and 2-1-1960 prior to promulgation of said second proviso and therefore the said second proviso did not in any way affect their case. Confirmation of urban land of said chaks in their favour is unexceptionable. It was only the allotment in favour of Mst. Zohra Ashraf which was made on 9-5- 1960, about two and a half months after the promulgation of said second proviso. However, in her case too, the appellant cannot succeed inasmuch as under the said second proviso, it was only the Central Government which could permit All Bakhsb appellant to retain land against his verified claim for rural land but no such order of retention of said land is alleged to have been obtained by Ali Bakhsh from Central Government nor has it been alleged that even an application had been filed by Ali D Bakhsh appellant with the Central Government with such a prayer. (The case of Mian Irshad All v. Government of Pakistan (1), is an instance showin that applications were filed with Central Government through Chief Settlemen and Rehabilitation Commissioner for Central Government to pass orders on them under said second proviso). In the absence of any such order by Central Government, said urban land was available for satisfaction of verified claims of urban claimants. Therefore, land had rightly been confirmed in favour of ,Mst. Zuhra Ashraf on 9-5-1960.
Furthermore the said proviso only conferred a discretionary jurisdiction on Central Government and did not give any right to appellant temporary allottee to retain such land. Such a temporary allottee could get the right to allotment of such land only on order of retention of such land having been made by Central E Government and no such order having actually been made, the appellant had no vested right in the land in question and none had been violated. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was clearly conscious of the said position because when he held that allotments made to Mst. Zuhra Ashraf and other urban area claimants were in order, he meant to say that appellant rural area claimant had no vested right in the urban land in question and in the absence of any orders by Central Government for retention of said land by appellant or any other temporary allottee under said second proviso, his land, urban in character as it was, was available for allotment, to urban area claimants against their verified urban claims and had rightly been allotted to them. This conclusion is further supported by the circumstance that when he directed the D. S. C. To recommend the cases of rural area claimants in possession of rural land as temporary allottees for last five years (for onward transmission to the Central Govern- {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1975 Lab. 7 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' meat for getting an order from Central Government in their favour) he excluded appellant and other rural area claimants whose temporary allotment had already been confirmed in favour of urban area claimants and confined his direction to such rural area claimants whose temporary allotments were still subsisting. The first point has, therefore, no force and is repelled.
13. As for point No, 2, quasi-permanent allotment dated 8-3-1961 in the name of the appellant was the result of the order dated 19-11-1960 of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner.
However, the said order had been set aside by his predecessor by his order dated 28-24963 which had declared the land in question to be urban. It is settled law that when the basic order is set aside then those orders which are based upon the same also fall to the ground. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had in his order dated 28-2-1963 specifically cancelled all the allotments made to the rural area claimants. He had further restored quasi- permanent allotments of Tamil Asghar, Bilqis Khizer and Zuhra Ashraf, Iqbalud-Din, against their urban entitlement which allotments were prior in point of time to the confirmation on 8-3-1961 in favour of the appellant. This order was consistent with law prevailing at that time. Furthermore, as already stated, under the second proviso it was only the Central Government which could permit Ali Bakhsh to retain land against his verified claim for rural land. No application had, however, been alleged to have been filed by the appellant to the Central Government nor it is alleged that the Central Government had made any order permitting the appellant to retain the said land. The allotment dated .8-3-1961 in favour of the appellant was, therefore, not supported by any order of the Central Government and was a nullity in the eye of law and the appellant could not build any superstructure of right upon the said order. Furthermore Chief Settlemen and Rehabilitation Commissioner's Letter No, 2585-63/4248-(L), dated F 26-6-1963 appears to be applicable to the cases of only those temporary allottees whose temporary allotments were intact yet. Confirmation dated 8-3-1961 of temporary allotment of appellant in favour of appellant having been set aside on 28-2-1963 and earlier allotments in favour of Mst. Zuhra Ashraf and other urban area claimants having been restored, the allotment dated 8-3-1961 was no more operative nor temporary allotment of Ali Bakhsh appellant was intact on 26-6-1963. The appellant could not therefore, claim the benefit of the said letter of 1963. This point has, also, therefore, no substance in it and the same is repelled.
14. As for the third point, it is obvious that temporary allotment of Ali Bakhsh appellant had already been confirmed in favour of Sh. Iqbal-udDin and Mst. Zuhra Ashraf respectively on 2-1-1960 and 9- 5-1960, a Ion time before 8-12-1960. The land of temporary allotment of appellant Al G Bakhsh having already been confirmed, on the very showing of the appellant, no benefit could be granted to the appellant on the basis of this memo. Which was alleged to have saved such temporary allotments from bein disturbed as were intact on 8-12-1960. This point has also therefore no force.
14-A. So far as the 4th and last point is concerned it is clearly based on the wrongful assumption that the law as available in 1959/60 was that a temporary allotted of urban land with a verified claim of rural area, must, as a matter of course, be confirmed said land under said second proviso.
As already shown, the second proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 24 of Supplementary Scheme No, 2 inserted on 20-2-1960 gave the power of making an order of retention of such land by such a temporary allotted to the Central Government. The allotment and confirmation of land to such temporary allotted was not automatic; it was dependent upon a specific order having been made by the Central Government permitting such a person to retain such land. It is only if an order of the Central Government permitting such a temporary allotted to retain such land was received that the Settlement authorities could confirm the said land to him on the Register R. L.
11. Except for the said second proviso inserted on 20-2-1960, the law clearly then was that rural area claimants were to be granted only rural land even if they held temporary allotments in urban areas. After the introduction on 20-2-1960 of said second proviso a letter is stated to have been promulgated on 8-12-1960 (which, however, has not been produced) issuing a general stay order against allotments to urban area claimants of temporary urban allotments made in favour of rural area claimants who were in possession thereof for not less than five years. This letter also showed that prior to 8-12-1960, in the absence of any order of Central Government permitting the retention by such temporary allottee of land of his temporary allotment, the said urban land could be allotted to urban area claimants. On 26-6-1963 by means of letter quoted above, the law under the said second proviso underwent a change and power of Central Government to permit retention of temporary allotment under said second proviso, it appears, was given by the Central Government to Settlement authorities and made a matter of general policy permitting Settlement authorities to allow such a temporary allottee to retain land of his temporary allotment to the extent of reduced limit as specified in the said letter. When the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dealt with the case of the appellant on 28-2-1963, the said letter had not yet been received and he decided on the basis of the law as in force in 1960 which had continued to remain in operation till 25-6-1963. That law was that in absence of any order by Central Government permitting a temporary allottee qualified under said second proviso to retain land of his temporary allotment could, before 8-12-1960, be allotted and confirmed to an urban area claimant. No order of the Central Government permitting All Bakhsh appellant .t retain said land was available on the date of allotments of appellants land to private respondents which all fell before 8-12-1960. Therefore, the Chic Settlement Commissioner had rightly held that confirmations of land o temporary allotment of Ali Bakhsh to urban area claimants were in order. In holding so the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner has clearly relied upon the law as in force in 1959-60. Therefore earlier part of argument of the learned counsel has no force.
15. As for the other leg of argument of the learned counsel (that to uphold the order dated 28-2- 1963, the learned Single Judge had relied upon letter dated 1-7-19E4 of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner which was not in operation when Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner made the said order) it may be noted that the said letter of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had impliedly referred to letter dated 8-12-1969 whereby a general stay order was issued against allotment of such urban lands to urban area claimants as were in possession of rural area claimants, as temporary allottees for not less than five years. As is clear from point No, (iii) above,, the appellant had himself relied upon said letter dated 8-12-1960 which itself visualized that before 8-12-1960, such land could be allotted to the urban area claimants.
Therefore, when the learned Single Judge drew the inference from letter dated 1-7-1964 that intention of the Government was not to disturb temporary allotments made before 8th December, 1960, he was only saying that according to Central Government itself which was repository of power under said second proviso, law before 8-12-1960 was that such land was, in the absence of an order made by it in favour of a temporary allottee under said second proviso, allocable to urban area claimants. Therefore, reliance by the learned Single Judge on said letter of 1964 which read with letter dated 8-12-1980 was declarant of law in force before 8-12-1960 was not open to any exception. In view of this, there is no substance in this part of the argument of the learned counsel also.
16. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this letters patent appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.