1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioners' claim has been negative don the ground that they had failed to prove that they were ever allotted the land in dispute.
2. The petitioners, in support of their claim, had relied upon a recital in the Roznamcha Waqiati which contained a mention of an order of allotment of the land in dispute in their favour by the competent revenue officer. However, according to the department, this recital was incorrect in so far a there was, in fact, no such order of allotment in existence in the relevant register of allotments.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court summoned the original register and personally examined it and found that there was no entry to the effect that the petitioners had ever been allotted the land in question existing in the said Register. He, therefore, held that their occupation over the land was unauthorised and that they had no right to the land. He, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
4. The case of the petitioner before us is that the register produced before the learned Judge in the High Court and also before us did pot contain all the allotments that bad been made to the various allottees and, therefore, the absence of any order of allotment in their favour in the said register, was not conclusive. We, therefore, also summoned the original register that had been seen by the learned Judge in the High Court. The relevant officials of the department also appeared before us.
5. The register shows that the entries have been made in C. Form 12 prescribed in para. 19 of the Colony Manual and that it is not strictly a register of allotments but contains all kinds of entries, including entries of allotments. There is, of course, no entry with regard to the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioners herein, but the learned counsel for the petitioners asked the officials of the department present in Court to show us the entry with respect to the allotment made in favour of the new allottee, who has since been allotted the land after the possession of the petitioners over it was found to unauthorised. The officials of the department were unable to show any such entry and tried to explain that the register in question contained only the allotments made in the year 1956.
6. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that, according to the petitioners, they were allotted the land in 1957. Conse--quently, the absence of any entry regarding allotment of the land in their favour in the register shown to us and to the High Court did not affect the situation. In these circumstances, the submission that the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified in non-suiting the petitioners solely on the ground of the absence of an entry of the allotment in their favour in the said Register has some force.
7. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
8. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if necessary.
9. The possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed meanwhile.
10. M.Z.M.