1. ' Mian Muhammad Zamurrad and Muhammad Khan have challenged the order dated 15th May, 1972 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Campbellpur. This order was passed in appeal filed by Sardar Ali respondent No, 2 against Muhammad Alam respondent No, 3, after a lapse of seven years. This appeal was decided in favour of Sardar Ali on the ground that "the temporary allotment held by Sardar Ali son of Piran Ditta J & K refugee was neither cancelled nor any show-cause notice was served upon him before its allotment to Alam Din."
2. ' After this petition had been admitted to regular hearing, Muhammad Khan petitioner No, 3 died.
3. His legal heirs have been brought on record. Respondent No, 3 was served. He has not turned up.
4. He is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
5. ' The relevant facts pertaining to this case are that evacuee land measuring 16 Kanals 13 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 533, 534, 536 to 539 situate in Multan Khurd District Attock was temporarily allotted to Sardar Ali in 1960. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) Tallagang cancelled this allotment on 31st December, 1964 on an application that the temporary allottees including Sardar Ali did not like to retain the temporary allotment. Thereafter the disputed land was confirmed in the name of Muhammad Alam at Khata No, 27 of R. L. II.
6. ' On 23rd June, 1965 Muhammad Alam sold 8 Kanals 13 Marlas in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 and 8 Kanals to one Abdur Rashid. Then Abdur Rashid alienated his land in the name of Muhammad Khan petitioner through a registered sale-deed.
7. ' In the year 1971, Sardar All came to know about the transfer in favour of Muhammad Alam. He filed the appeal referred to above.
8. The solitary ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that when the appeal filed by Sardar All was decided, the petitioners were not heard. All the three being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration had a right of hearing.
9. ' The next point urged was the inordinate delay for filing appeal by Sardar Ali for which he gave no explanation.
10. ' I have also heard Sardar All respondent who is present in person. He submitted that he is entitled to the land in dispute. The petitioners are holding possession without any legal justification. They have no legal right to retain the same.
11. ' In the report submitted by respondent No, I, it is conceded that the petitioners were not impleaded as a party to the appeal and as such they were not heard. Nevertheless, the stand taken by respondent No, 1 is that even if they would have been heard the result still would have been the B same. I don't accept this position. On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioners had a right of hearing. They were condemned unheard.
12. ' This petition, therefore, must be accepted on this technical ground. I order accordingly.
13. ' The case shall go back to the Settlement Commissioner concerned who is directed to summon the petitioners and respondent No, 2 as well as respondent No, 3, if he is available, ' and shall decide the case afresh within three months under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court.
14. ' With this observation, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.