' This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 687/R/76, 1233/R/76 and 1067/R/75 as these arise in similar circumstances.
2. According to the case of the petitioners they were made temporary allotments of urban agricultural land (as shown in the Special Jamabandi for the year 1946-47) in Village Piran Ghaib, Tehsil and District Jhelum. On verification of their claims, their temporary allotments were adjusted to the extent of their entitlements in March, 1960 and in the last case on 26th July, 1960. They have remained in possession of the land since their temporary allotments and entries exist in the revenue record. It is stated that in 1975 it transpired that in the fake applications for reservation, the areas were reserved the same day in favour of the then applicants by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Bogus Provisional Transfer Orders were issued followed by Permanent Transfer Deeds. When fraud came in light, after enquiry one Sufi Ghulam Mohyuddin was put to trial before a Martial Law Court where, on pardon being granted the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had ordered reservations and signed Provisional Transfer Orders stated that all the orders of reservations have, after his retirement been ante-dated by him. The accused was convicted for five years R. I. And a fine of Rupees three lacs and in default to undergo further six months' R. I. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned has appeared with record and stated about the above and further stated that he is enquiring into about 130 cases of bogus orders of reservations and fake Provisional Transfer Orders. In one of the cases W. P. No, 687/R/76, the transferee has filed a written statement saying that he never filed any application for reservation nor, obtained any transfer order. In W. P. 1067/R/75, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 9 to 13 had submitted that the said respondents have purchased some areas from the petitioner No, 4 and on the spot the petitioners and the said respondents have built their houses. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Provisional Transfer Orders issued to the transferee respondents in 1962 were printed and issued in the year 1968, meaning thereby that the Provisional Transfer Orders issued to the transferee-respondents were bogus altogether.
2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents have submitted that the transfer orders were made in favour of the said respondents in the year 1960 and the petitions filed in 1975 suffer from laches. It is also submitted that there was a ceiling of 2f acres in the urban area and the petitioners could not have been made allotments in excess thereof. It is also submitted that some of the Khasra Nos. Transferred to the respondents have never been in the allotments of the petitioners.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the ceiling did not apply to the confirmation of the temporary allotments vide para. 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No, 11 as well as memo. Issued on behalf of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner bearing No, 7927-59/65-R (P), dated 6th January, 1960.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance, it is clear that the matter of transfer in favour of the contesting respondents does require enquiry.
The fact that the petitions have been filed in 1975 and the transfer orders were A made in favour of the contesting respondents in the year 1960 does not amount to inordinate delay for the reason that the alleged fraud of transfer in favour of respondents came to light only in 1975 when investigation was made and it transpired, during the trial that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had signed the transfer orders in favour of the contesting respondents admitted that he had,' after his retirement, ante-dated many transfer orders. The cases of transfer of similar nature are already pending adjudication before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned. The unusual disposal of applications for reservation, without enquiry, the same day the application was made, and the Provisional Transfer Orders bearing Nos. Which were neither printed nor issued by the Head Office until six years later make the matter eminently suitable for enquiry. In this view of the matter, these cases are remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) for entrustment to a competent Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law, but, in view of the fact that some of the transferees have passed on the area through association to other respondents, there shall. Be no order as to costs.