' LEHRASAP KHAN, J.-This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 10th February, 1981 passed by a learned Judge in Chamber whereby be dismissed the Constitutional petition filed by the appellants impugning the order dated 31st May, 1977 of the Settlement Commissioner/ C. S. C.
By which he cancelled the allotment of agricultural land from the names of the petitioners in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala acting on the statement of the appellants' attorney namely Sh. Abdul Shakoor respondent No, 10.
2. The appellants were allotted agricultural land measuring about 160 Kanals in the aforementioned village in Hafizabad Tehsil of Gujranwala District in lieu of their verified claim. Some land was also allotted to them in Sialkot District. The appellants executed general power of attornay in favour of respondent No, 10 for the management and demarcation, etc., of the land allotted to them in Sialkot District. The power of attorney did not contain any authority in favour of respondent No, 10 regarding the appellants' land in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Punjab) Lahore, viz, respondent No, 1 challenging the validity of allotment of the land in favour of the appellants in Hafizabad Tehsil. Respondent No, 10 allegedly colluded with respondents Nos. 2 to 9 and made a statement before respondent No, 1 to the -effect that the allotment of land in the names of the appellants in village Qila Ram Rang be cancelled.
The learned Settlement Commissioner (respondent No, 1) acting on the statement of respondent No, 10 cancelled the allotment of the land in question from the names of the appellants on 31st May, 1977.
4. The appellants impugned the order dated 31st May, 1977 by way of a Constitutional petition before this Court mainly on the ground that respondent No, 10 had no authority in regard to appellants' land in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad and therefore, the learned Settlement Commissioner could not act on his statement while cancelling the appellants' allotment. They alleged that respondent No, 10 being an unauthorized person the appellants have been condemned unheard through the order dated 31st May, 1977.
5. The learned Judge in Chamber, however, vide his impugned order dated 10th February, 1981 observed that if the appellants' attorney was not authorised to make any statement in respect of the land in District Gujranwala the petitioners cculd take action against their attorney. He further observed that the allotment in favour of the appellants was cancelled on 31st May, 1977 but they challenged the same through the Constitutional petition on 28th January, 1981 and therefore, the same suffered from laches. The writ petition was consequently dismissed and hence this appeal.
6. It is a matter of record that Abdul Shakoor respondent No, 10 was the attorney of the appellants with regard to the land allotted to them in Sialkot District. The power of attorney executed by the appellants in his favour did not include any authority to him with regard to their land in Hafizabad Tehsil. He could not, therefore. Make his statement for cancellation of allotment of land made in their favour in the said Tehsil. Ch Muhammad Abdullah learned counsel for the respondents urged that the appellants were not entitled to obtain allotment in Hafizabad Tehsil as they had already obtained allotment in Sialkot district. It transpires from the contents of copies of R. L. 11 produced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the total entitlement of the appellants was 2130 P. I. U.
And they obtained allotment in Sialkot District to the extent of 1011 P. I. U. In this manner after obtaining allotment of land in Sialkot District they still had unsatisfied claim which had been satisfied in Hafizabad Tehsil of Gujranwala District.
7. In regard to question of laches we would like to observe that the impugned order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner cancelling the petitioners' allotment in Hafizabad District was made at their back acting on the statement of an unauthorised person although they continued to be in possession of the land in question. They (the appellants) challenged the said order through the Constitutional petition when they came to know of it. They, in the circumstances, cannot be held liable for laches.
8. In the light of the above observations we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber and declare the order passed by respondent No, I on 31st May, 1977 to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. We, however, remand the case to the learned Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after affording full opportunity to the parties of hearing and adducing evidence.
' The matter shall be decided within three months under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. No order is made as to costs.