' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-This order will dispose of Writ Petitions No, 594/R-81, (2) 594/R-81, (3)
596/R-81, (4) 597/R-81, (5) 598/R-81 and (6) 599/R-8l as well as Writ Petition (7) No, 659/R-81, (8)
660/R-81, (9) 671/R-81 and (10) 662/R-81. The first set of petitions are by allottees and the second by vendees of some of the allotted land.
2. Relevant facts as gathered from the petitions and parawise comments by the A. C. Respondent No, 1 are that one Anwaruddin filed al claim for abandoned land which was verified as rural and allotment made. His heirs, a son and five daughters-the petitioners filed claim which were verified as urban. On reference from the Central Record Room, Claims Commissioner entrusted the matter to late Mr. Jaliluddin Farooqi, Deputy Claims Commissioner-an officer of unimpeachable integrity who verified the petitioner's claims as urban. Allotments in lieu thereof were made in villages Amarsidhu, Baganwala and Charar. Allotment in the first village went out of the hands of the petitioners because local Muslims being occupancy tenants got decrees in their favour. Allotments in the last village Charar have been cancelled by the A. C. (Sadar) and he has directed registration of case vide order dated 12th October, 1981. This is challenged by the allottees and the vendees.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the orders of verification of their claims and allotments had become 'final' under the relevant laws, the laws themselves have been repealed since 1st July, 1974 vide Act XVI of 1975 : the respondent A. C. Had no jurisdiction to pass the order. The action is illegal and arbitrary having been passed in the secrecy of office without notice to petitioners who have been prejudicially affected.
4. The case of the Settlement Department is that the verification of claim as urban was invalid and that the allotment cancelled is in excess of entitlement.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
Verification of claims by the Deputy Claims Commissioner was 'final' under the relevant law and the allotment in dispute in village Charar is within the entitlement. The basis of the impugned order is knocked out. However, in view of Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yousaf and others we pass no order as regards registration or investigation of the case. As regards the assertion of the department that the abandoned land had earlier been verified as rural and allotment made in lieu thereof, the learned Member, Board of Revenue may entrust the matter to a notified officer who may cancel the same if the fact be as asserted after notice to the persons concerned in accordance with law. These petitions are thus disposed of. PLD 1976 SC 271