' The petitioner claims to be a displaced person from village Khoh Tehsil Ramgarh, Alwar State (India). After migration from that state, he settled down in village Jia Bagga, Tehsil and District Lahore. He submitted his claim form No, 7732 regarding the agricultural land abandoned by him in India. He was allotted land in said village Jia Bagga which was confirmed in 1955 (Annex A). Out of his confirmed allotment one Khasra No, 147/1 measuring 29 kanals was allotted to one Chiragh, son of Gami, on 31-8-1960. The present petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal against that allotment order and the same was accepted by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) vide his order dated 27-9-1962 (Annex. B) Barkat Ali, son of Said Chiragh, filed a revision petition before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner who vide his order dated 20- 8-1968 (Annex. C) dismissed the same. This was earlier round of litigation with one Chiragh regarding a portion of the land confirmed in favour of the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, the relevant record from Alwar State was not received and, therefore, his claim could not be verified. Subsequently, instructions were issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner that certificates were to be issued to such displaced persons. According to the Robkar dated 7-11-1963 (Annex. E), such claim forms were summoned by the Central Record Office from the Districts. The name of the present petitioner appears at serial No, 25 of the list of such claimants mentioned in the said Robkar.
3. Earlier, W. P. No, 604/R of 1961 was filed on behalf of refugees from Alwar State who had filed their claim forms but were not verified by the Central Record Office. The petitioner claims to be one of the petitioners in that writ petition too. On the receipt of report from the Department that writ petition was admitted to regular hearing and status quo was granted subject to notice on 8-12- 1961. By judgment dated 20.4-1966, that writ petition was accepted and the Chief Settlement Commissioner was directed to hear the parties who were likely to be affected by the order of allotment of land which may be passed in that case and he should decide the case afresh on merits. Memorandum No, 4599-59 012-R (C), dated 11-6-1959 (Annex. J) was issued by the Secretary (Rural) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the effect that land held by the claimant from Alwar State against certificates should not be cancelled to the extent of entitlement in case their claims were pending for re-verification, In spite- of this general stay order issued by the Secretary (Rural) as well as the status quo order issued by this Court on 8-12-1961 in W. P. No, 604/R of 1961, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 1964, on the basis of report from the Patwari made a note at R. L. H of the petitioner recommending the cancellation of the Khata from the name of the petitioner as the certificate had not been received. Against this recommendation of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 1-8-1964, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) while the appeal was still pending, the Khata of the petitioner was cancelled by the Chairman, Allotment Committee. On .5-10-1964. Prior to the actual cancellation of the petitioner's allotment, the land in dispute was allotted Commissioner (Land) by his order dated 11-12-1964 (Annex F) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 28-4-1966 (Annex. H) rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court through the present writ petition.
4. It may mentioned at this stage that registered post card was sent to Mst, Madina Saira, respondent No, 2 which came back with the endorsement that no one of that name was living in House No, 299/F, Rahmanpura Colony Lahore. The case was adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioner to find out the correct address of the respondent. Accordingly, a fresh address was supplied by the petitioner and fresh notice was again issued to this respondent by registered post for 27-2-1974. The notice was not received back. It was ordered that the process should he repeated by registered post on both the addresses for 15-4-1974. On that date, neither the envelopes despatched by registered post had heen received back in the office, nor any acknowledgment had been received. Again on 15-4-1974, it was ordered by this Court as under "Repeat the process by registered post A. D. For 3-6-1974 and also publish citations in the Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, and Daily Jang, Karachi."
' The office complied with the above order. The case came up for hearing on 8-7-1974 when the following order was passed :- ' Despite citation in two dailies namely, Jang, Karachi, dated 4-7-1974, and Nawa-i-Wliqt dated 18- 6-1974, for today's appearance of respondent No, 2, she is absent. She is proceeded against ex parte.."
In spite of repeated efforts for the service of respondent No, 2 through registered post as well as citation, neither she personally nor anybody else on her behalf is present today. In this background, I have no option except t proceed with the case ex parte. It may be observed that this writ petition was filed in May, 1966 and is one of the oldest writ petition pending at the moment. Even otherwise, I feel that further adjournment will serve no purpose as all possible attempts for the service of respondent No, 2 have already been exhausted. The petitioner claims to be in self-cultivating possession of the land in dispute. The allotment in favour of the respondent was made on 1-10- 1964. Since then she has not taken any step otherwise, she has shown no interest or ambiguity in this land this to get possession of this land. Even circumstances further justifies ex parte proceedings against her.
5. During the arguments the learned counsel has placed on record a photostat copy of Robkar issued by the Central Record Office, Lahore, which is reproduced below :- {{URDU TEXT}} Mr. Razi Hyder, Naib-Tehsildar, Central Record Office, to be present in Court in connection with some other case. I showed him this document and he has admitted its genuineness. A perusal of this document shows that the claim form of the petitioner bearing No, 7732 has been verified for 316 produce index units. It further shows that the petitioner can purchase the excess area, if any, in accordance with the instructions contained in the letter mentioned therein. After the issuance of this Robkar and verification of the petitioner's claim form, the basis of cancellation of the confirmed allotment of the petitioner disappears and the writ petition should be accepted. As mentioned earlier, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground that the required certificate had not been received from the Central Record Office. Now the same office has verified the claim of the petitioner to the extent of 316 produce index units and has also permitted him to purchase the excess area allotted to him. According to the instructions of the counsel for the petitioner, the Central Record Office vide its Robkar dated 5-11-1953 (Annex. E) had summoned the claim form of the petitioner but the same was not sent for a long time. It was due to this delay that his claim form could not be verified earlier. The learned counsel further contends that this was deliberately done for the benefit of the respondent, because one of her close relatives was holding a high post in the District a that time. Another circumstance which goes against the respondent is that allotment in her favour was made prior to the cancellation of the land from the name of the petitioner: As mentioned earlier, allotment in her favour was made on 1-10-1964, while the same land was cancelled from the khata, of the petitioner on 5-10-1964. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this was done as a special favour to her and it also shows the irregularity committed by the Department to oblige someone else. More serious objection against the allotment of the respondent is that this Court earlier on 8-12-1961 while admitting W. P. No, 604/R of 1961 to regular hearing, had granted status quo order and the present petitioner was one of the parties in that writ petition. As mentioned earlier, the Secretary (Rural to the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide memorandum No, 4599-59/6012-R (C) dated 11-6-1959 had issued a general stay order regarding refugees from Alwar State and was also a party in the earlier W. P. No, 604/R of 1961. In the presence of these orders, the land in dispute could not be allotted to the respondent.
The allotment is liable to be quashed on this short ground alone.
6. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the land in question was cancelled without issuing any notice or otherwise affording any opportunity of being heard. The allotment was cancelled in his absence. If notice had been given to the petitioner, he would have justified his allotment on more than one around.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of this Court dated 29- 1-1962 and 18-6-1963 in two W. P. Nos. 626/R of 1960 and 1433/R of 1961, respectively. These writ petitions were also filed on behalf of refugees from Alwar State and their claim forms were also not verified at the relevant time. Those writ petitions were accepted. The case of the present petitioner is also identical.
8. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and going through the entire material available on the record, I am clearly of the view that the impugned orders are without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same are hereby quashed.
' Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.