' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question, order dated 20th November, 1978, passed by respondent No, I.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir and on migration he settled in village Rawn, Tehsil Narowal. District Sialkot. He was issued a ration-card for three persons. Against this ration-card and as {{URDU TEXT}} he was allotted land measuring 77 Kanals and 2 Marlas in village Rawn and Dodewali, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. The respondent was conferred with the proprietary rights of the land allotted to him in these two villages on deposit of price. Respondent No, 2 levelled an allegation against the petitioner that he had obtained double allotment both in the aforesaid two villages and also in village Sahke, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot at Khata No,
63. On this complaint of respondent No, 2 proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and ultimately, the impugned order dated 20th November, 1978 was passed whereby the land in dispute allotted to the petitioner in villages Rawn and Dodewali was cancelled. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended : {{PAGE BLURR}} Firstly, that the Border Area Committee which decided the matter was not lawfully constituted in that there could be no Committee with a representative of the Rehabilitation Coni:,;ssioner as its member as with the repeal of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, there was no Rehabilitation Commissioner existing who could appoint validity his representative to act as a member of the Ein,rdet Area Committee ; DCLIILI1 Secondly, that the conclusion arrived at vide the impugned oraer that Chiragh Din petitionei- iiid63btiited 411otmentaf,landin village Sahke was wholly bated iinlihinjitiiihretlatid,withautladVertingto the material evidence 6P;rehed whI t Linter-104f cansigtoknflhe1-state, ment of the tieriffithit haVingeiversubmitterhiany forth 46 giptii Moo .
Valiance nt11:oh ilbrathith the neplifizlthetiettifikitioltiPtIVieffebt)thidltheticinerciatver *951 *IiptroRRAfk3f,131aRfji igurhibs pi'the stacpmept of wji-R010,90WrIL_bc1 mgr paid t9hP)40,1-;RSCP.O4F-,f11.1fl'I. 'rPa .Ii o .4i vvxx o Sahke {{PAGE BLURR}} ' thirdly, that the allotment of land in village Sahke having not been obtained by the petitioner, the land in dispute in village Rawn and Dodewali proprietary rights of which had been conferred upon the petitioner, could not be cancelled and instead it was the land in village Sahke which should have been cancelled ; and ' lastly. That the observations in the impugned order about the change of form regarding allotment of the land in village Sahke subsequently were only conjectural and based on the evidence of a person who was not put to the test of cross-examination and thus reliance placed thereon was wholly inapt.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in so far as the constitution of the Border Area Committee is concerned, the amendment brought about by the Punjab Ordinance (III) of 1981 validates the constitution of the Border Area Committee and even if the Border Area Committee was not lawfully constituted, the presently constituted Border Area Committee can go into the matter as it has been lawfully constituted.
5. As regards the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these relates to findings of fact and are not appropriate subject for adjudication in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that in view of para, 44-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 22 under which the Border Area Committee had passed the order, could not be invoked for the purposes of cancellation of the land in dispute as the said Scheme was made in applicable to the allotment of land to displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir.
7. Having given consideration to the controversy involved, I find that matter calls for adjudication afresh by the Border Area Committee. The reason which has persuaded me to come to this conclusion is that the previous Border Area Committee was obviously not lawfully constituted as the Legislator himself had to amend the law in order to have a properly constituted Border Area Committee. The impugned order does not appear to be covered by para 18 added in Martial Law Regulation No, 9 of 1959 by virtue of the Punjab Ordinance. III of 1981 as there is no specific approval of the General Headquarters placed. On record regarding the impugned order and the newly- added para only saves such orders of the Border Area Committee which were passed prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Ordinance III of 1981 which had been approved by the General Headquarters.
8. Additionally, it may be observed that it has rightly been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Border Area Committee which passed the impugned order had not taken into consideration material B evidence on record such as the statement of the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner's nephew, and the all important statement of the tenant on the land allegedly obtained by the petitioner in village Sahke.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, accepting this writ petition 1 set a side the impugned order 20th November, 1978 and remand the case back to the newly-construction Border Area Committee for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after notice to the parties. Raise all legal and factual pleas before the Border Area C The parties may committee.
' There will, however, be no order as to costs.