NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will dispose of Civil-Appeals Nos. 115 and 116 of 1974, as both raise a common question of law and are directed against a common judgment passed by the Lahore High Court.
2. The facts briefly are that Muhammad Chiragh, the appellant in both the appeals, is successor- in-interest of one Ghulam Muhammad, a displaced person from District Hoshiarpur (East Punjab) an "agreed area" within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, where he had abandoned land. Ghulam Muhammad was initially allotted some land in village Uggoki in Sialkot tehsil in partial satisfaction of his claim and had his surplus units transferred to village Saukinwind in Pasrur Tehsil of District Sialkot, where he was proposed and allotted land measuring 326 kanals 7 marlas (hereinafter called the land in dispute) vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commis-- sioner dated 5-5-1964.
Akbar A.I (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 6 in Civil Appeal No. 115/1.1) and his sister Mst.
Hashmat Bibi (respondent No. 1) in Civil Appeal No. 116/74) are displaced persons from a "non- agreed area." Their claims were sent initially to Tehsil Sialkot. Later, however, when their entitlement vide M. R-V was received, their claims were sent to tehsil Pasrur and Mst. Hashmat Bibi succeeded in getting certain allotment - in partial satisfaction of her claim in village Libbey in the said tehsil.
Her surplus units were still pending satisfaction when the land in dispute was allotted to Ghulam Muhammad (predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Chiragh, appellant herein) in village Saukinwind (Tehsil Pasrur) in satisfaction of his claim. Likewise, the claim of Akbar A.I was also sent to village Rajadewaii in Tehsil Pasur and was pending satisfaction when the land in dispute was allotted to Ghulam Muhammad.
4. Both Akbar A.I and his sister Mst. Hashmat Bibi felt aggrieved by the allotment of land in dispute to Ghulam Muhammad in village Saukinwind and filed appeals against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 5-5-1964 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The said learned officer vide his order dated 12-10-1964 accepted the appeals and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direction that preference should be given to the claims pending in Tehsil Pasrur. This order was not challenged by any appeal or revision and, thus, became final.
5. After the remand, the case was again heard by the same Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who had passed the order dated 5-5-1964 in his order dated 22-3-1965 he adhered to his previous decision and held that Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi did not have any preferential claim for allotment as against Ghulam Muhammad. On appeal by Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was upheld by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 19-7-1965. Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi, accordingly, filed separate revision petitions before the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 26-2-1966 accepted both the revisions and set aside the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 22-3-1965 and the Additional Settle--ment Commissioner dated 19-7-1965. The learned Settlement Commissioner took the view that according to paragraph 3(g) of Memorandum No. 1293-63/ 18157-R, dated 27/28-5-1963 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner both Akbar A.I and Hashmat Bibi who had their claims pending in Tehsil Pasrur were entitled to precedence over Ghulam Muhammad whose claim was received from Sialkot Tehsil.
6. Dissatisfied with the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner, the appellant lilt Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1974) filed Writ Petition No. 663/R of 1966 and the appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 1.16 of 1974) filed Writ Petition No. 664 of 1966 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Both the petitions were beard together by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, who dismissed both of them by a common order passed on 8-12-1973. It was held by him that Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi were sitting allottees in village Rajadewall and Libbay in Tehsil Pasrur respectively and as such were rightly given precedence over the appellant, whose predecessor-in---interest Ghulam Muhammad was a sitting allottee in village Uggoki in Tehsil Sialkot.
Leave was granted to consider the questions, namely:- "Whether for the purposes of allotment of land to a displaced person in satisfaction of his claim
(a) a sitting allottee in a particular village in a tehsil is entitled to precedence over a claimant, who gets his unsatisfied units transferred from another tehsil in the same district to another village of the first mentioned tehsil ;
(b) a displaced person with a verified land claim from an agreed area is entitled to precedence over a displaced person from a non-agreed, area ?
7. In support of the first question it was submitted by Kh. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the appellant, that under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme the territorial unit for the purpose of Rehabilitation is the whole District and not a Tehsil in the District and, therefore, even if it be assumed that Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi had their claims pending to certain villages in Tehsil Pesrur, they were not entitled on that score to precedence over Ghulam Muhammad, merely because he was initially a sitting allottee in Tehsil Sialkot and his surplus were transferred to village Saukinwind in Pasrur Tehsil, in which tehsil the claims of Akbar A.I and Mst. Hashmat Bibi were still lying unsatisfied. Both parties having claims in Slalkot were at par. In support of this submission learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon para. 9 of Part II of the Scheme, where the District as a whole is stated to be one unit in the relevant respect.
8. Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, learned counsel for Settlement Department has, on the other hand, pointed out that para. 9 aforesaid deals with allot--ments in congested areas. He points out that Sialkot is not one of the Districts classified as a congested District and therefore, para. 9 is not relevant in the present case. On the other hand the paragraph governing the situation herein is para. 7 of the said Scheme, wherein the sitting allottees in the estate have preference over claimants whose claims are transferred from adjoining estate. The learned counsel admits that according to the terms of para. 7 no preference is provided to the sitting allottees of one tehsil over the sitting allottees of another tehsil in the same district whose surplus units have been transferred to the first mentioned tehsil. He submits that even in this situa--petition, the order of the Settlement Commissioner which was impugned in the writ petition before the High Court whereby the respondents were held to be entitled to preference is perfectly sustainable. In this connection, he pointed out that the Additional Settlement Commissioner in this order dated 12-10-1964, which was passed between the parties whereby the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has directed him to give preference to the claimants whose claims were pending in Tehsil Pasrur while making the allotment. The order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner not having been challenged by an appeal or revision, had become final and could not be objected to in proceedings which took place after the passing of the aforesaid remand order.
9. As for the second question, namely, whether for the purpose; of allotment of land, a displaced person with the verified land claim from an agreed area is entitled to precedence over the displaced person from a non. Agreed area, Khawaja Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon paragraph 2 of Chapter 11 of Part I of the Rehabilitation Scheme which lays down- "All persons who, in the prescribed area, owned land or held occupancy tenancy or other rights of a similar nature in land as may be specified by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, from time to time may be allotted land subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him."
The submission is that according to the above provision the Rehabilitation Scheme is designed to satisfy the land claim of displaced persons from agreed area, which necessarily excludes the claimants hailing from non-agreed area.
10. Mr. Shahzad Jahangir, on the other hand drew our attention to the Supplementary Rural Scheme, which dealt with the claimants of non-agreed area. In para. 3 thereof, it is laid down that the provisions of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Setlement Scheme shall apply mutartis mutandis to all claimants of the non-agreed areas as well, unless the Rehabilitation Commissioner specially provides to the contrary. As there was no provision made by him to the contrary but on the other hand, by para. 8 of the said Scheme the method of allotment of rural land was to follow mutatis mutandis the general principles set out in Part II, Chapter II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme the result was that claimants from non-agreed area were to be made allotments in the same manner as provided in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Since under para. 7 in Part II of the said Scheme read with the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 12-10-1964 the respondents were entitled to preference over the appellant, the allotment made in their favour in preference to the appellant cannot be objected to.
The result is that there is no force in these appeals. They are accord--ingly dismissed hereby, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.