1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-These two appeals arise out of a judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, whereby two Writ Petitions Nos. 224-R and 893 of 1967 under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 were disposed of.
2. Both these two petitions in the High Court were filed by the present appellants to challenge the legality of two orders passed by Mr. A. H. Khan Niazi in his capacity of Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, respectively, on the 3rd of March 1967, in the exercise of his review jurisdiction.
3. The appellants, who are displaced persons from Ludhiana, settled after migration to Pakistan in Chak No. 19/9-R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, which was Crown land reserved for criminal tribesmen, in occupation of Hindu settlers who had migrated to India. In 1949, the appellants' claim was that they were allotted Killa No. 20 in square No. 44 and Killas Nos. 16 to 25 in square No. 45 in this Chak, by the Rehabilitation Department. They brought the lands, which were uncultivable at the time, under cultivation, grew trees, constructed deras and sheds for cattle and continued to occupy the same till 1-6-65 when the said lands were allotted to one, Noor Muhammad son of Pir Bakhsh, by the Allotment Committee.
4. They went on appeal from this order, but the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who was also the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), dismissed the appeal on the ground that the whole of this area, which was in possession of criminal tribes who had migrated to India, had been treated as evacuee property and allotted to refugees.
5. From this order a number of persons went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Muitan Division, who was also the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan. The latter dealt with 8 revision petitions together. Out of these, Revision Petition No. 194 of 1965-66, according to the order of the Settlement Commissioner, appears to have been filed by the appellant Ahmad Din son of Umra and Revision Petition No. 281 of 1965-66 by appellant Ali Muhammad. It is not clear from the record whether the appellant Saifur Rahman son of Jangsher had filed any revision petition or had been allotted any portion of the killas in dispute.
6. It was contended before the Settlement Commissioner on behalf of the petitioners before him that according to the decision of the High Court of West Pakistan in Writ Petition No. 270 of 1961 and the decision of the Government members of criminal tribes belonging to Montgomery district who had been shifted to Chak No. 19/9-R, Tehsil Khanewal, could not be dispossessed of the lands allotted to them and should not be shifted to any other area.
7. These applications were resisted on the ground that the persons seeking revision were not members of the 75 criminal tribes who had been shifted by the Government from Montgomery District and whose cases had been decided by the Board of Revenue on 22-3-63. Hence they had no locus standi to claim that they should not be dispossessed from this area. It was further claimed that in the case of grants of State lands the position as decided by Government was that whether payment had been made or not for acquisition of proprietary and occupancy rights the lands should be treated as evacuee property if the original grantees had become evacuees.
8. The Settlement Commissioner, however, relying on a Memorandum of the Board of Revenue No. 8157-56/51-53-R(V), dated the 8th of December 1956, took the view that Crown lands, in which grantees had not acquired occupancy rights, would revert to Government on the migration of the grantee, but lands, in which occupancy rights had been acquired by original grantees before migration would be treated as evacuee property. On this basis the Commissioner examined the Patwari and found that since no accompany rights had been granted in respect of lands in dispute, the lands reverted to Government and, therefore, the settlement of Muslim evacuee members of criminal tribes on these lands, even though they were not criminal tribesmen shifted from Montgomery District, was valid. The revision petitions of Ahmad Din and Ali Muhammad, namely, Nos. 194 and 281 of 1965-66 were, accordingly, allowed and the orders allotting their lands to Noor Muhammad were set aside.
9. The respondent No. 2, Kader Bux, son of Mangla, had also filed Revision Petition No. 333 of 1965-66.
10. His revision petition was dismissed, because the lands on which he claimed to have been settled and which was subsequently allotted to Noor Muhammad son of Nabia, the original grantee migrants had acquired occupancy rights. This order was passed on the 30 September 1966.
11. From the chart given in this order of the Settlement Com--missioner it does not appear that appellant Saifur Rahman was interested in Killas Nos. 16 to 25 of square No. 45 or Killas No. 20 of square No. 44.
12. In the meantime, it appears, proceedings had already started for the ejectment of Ahmad Din and Ali Muhammad son of Umra from Killa No. 20 of square No. 44 and Killas Nos. 16 to 25 of square No. 45, and an order was passed to that effect by the S D. M./Collector, Khanewal, on the revenue side.
13. Against this order they went up in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who was also the Settlement Commis--sioner, and he set aside this order on the ground that as long as his order on the revisional applications stood, they could not be ejected. This order was passed on the 7th December 1966.
14. Kadir Bux, son of Mangla, the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 333 of 1965-66, then filed two review petitions against both the above order of Mr. A. H. Khan Niazt, one in revision on the Settlement side, objecting to the last sentence therein to the effect that "the allotment of land to these petitioners as members of the criminal tribes will continue as heretofore" and the other in appeal on the Revenue Side. The petitioners referred to in the revisional order were Nausher, Ahmad Din, Lal Dinth and Ali Muhammad but on the Revenue Side the appellants were Ahmad Din and Ali Muhammad and only the State was made a respondent.
15. It was pointed out to the Settlement Commissioner that the question as to whether these persons were members of a criminal tribe or not was not in issue before him and, therefore, the observation made by him was not justified. The Settlement Commissioner accepted this contention and took the view that this error had crept into his judgment as a result of "an accidental slip." The petition for review was, accordingly accepted on 3-3-67, but instead of deleting only the last sentence he deleted the last two sentences of his judgment, which were to the following effect :- "The revision petitions of Nausher, Ahmad Din, Lal Din and Ali Muhammad are accepted and the impugned orders set aside. The allotment of the land to these petitioners as members of the criminal tribes will continue as heretofore."
16. Thereafter he allowed the review on the Revenue Side as well on the same day. Set aside his appellate order of 7-12-66 and restored that of S. D. M./Collector, Khanewal, ordering ejectment of Ahmad Din and his brother Ali Muhammad.
17. In the review petitions Kadir Bux, it is alleged, had not made the present appellants parties but had joined as respondents only the persons who were respondents in his revision petition, namely, Abdur Rahman and Allah Bux. The copies of the orders of Mr. Niazi placed on the file, however, show that the parties in the Review Petition No. 34 of 1966-67, on the Settlement Side, were Qadir Buy v.
18. Ahmad Dirt and in Review Petition No. 35 of 1966-67 as the Revenue side were Qadir Bux v. Ahmad Din etc. As a result of his decision in the review matters a cloud was again raised on the position of the present appellants. Hence two writ petitions were filed in the High Court. Writ Petition No. 224-R, of 1967 was to challenge the order passed on the settlement side and Writ Petition No. 893 of 1967 was to challenge the order passed on the revenue side.
19. It appears that Mr. A. H. Khan Niazi, who occupied both the positions, dealt with the two cases by separate orders. He passed the order in review petition No. 34 of 1966-67 in his capacity as Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan, and the order in Review Petition No. 35 of 1966-67 in his capacity as Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan.
20. The High Court took the view that both the review were unsustainable, firstly, because the settlement review petition arose out of a revision to which the present appellants were not parties and, secondly, because the appellant Saifur Rahman was, in any event, not impleaded as a party in either of the review petitions. Ali Muhammad also was not made a party in the review matter on the settlement side. Having come to this finding the High Court declined to go into the merits of the case, leaving it open to the parties to raise their respective objections before the Settlement Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) to whom the case was remanded back for fresh decision in accordance with law after impleading the necessary parties.
21. Leave was granted in both these cases to consider whether the learned Judges of the High Court, after finding that the appellants Nos. 1 and 3 were not parties to the review petitions, were justified in remanding the case back for fresh decision.
22. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing in support of these appeals is that since Kadir Bux was not interested in any of the killa numbers, which had been in possession of the appellants, he had no locus standi to apply for the review of that portion of the order which upheld the allotments in favour of the appellants. All the killas with which Kadir Bux was concerned were, it is said, situated in square No. 41 and these lands of square No. 41, had been allotted to Abdur Rahman son of Hidayat and Allah Bux son of Ruria, whereas the lands allotted to the appellants were in squares No's. 44 and 45 with which Kadir Bux had no connection whatsoever. In any event, if Kadir Bux wanted the order upholding their allotments to be reviewed, then it was incumbent upon him to join them as parties to his review petitions, because, no order adversely affecting their interests could have been made behind their backs.
23. This last contention has been accepted by the High Court and the appellants should have no grievance against the portion of the order by which the orders in review were set aside. It is for this very reason that the order passed in review by the Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has been set aside. The only question, therefore, that now arises is as to whether the remand of the case was justified. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if Kadir Bux was not affected by the portion of the order upholding the allotments of the appellants he had no locus standi to apply for the review thereof. Hence the remand was wholly unnecessary. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent No. 2 we are of the opinion that the objection of the appellants to the remand order is clearly premature, for. The High Court has left all these questions open as will be appear ant from the last paragraph of its judgment where it has been clearly said that the parties would be at liberty to raise all such questions before the Settlement Commissioner. If the respondent Kadir Bux has no locus standi to challenge the bona fides of the claim of the appellants to be members of criminal tribes, then this question can also be raised before the authority concerned either on the settlement side or on the revenue side. It is eminently desirable that all these disputed questions of fact should be decided in the presence of the parties, as the position of the appellant Saifur Rahman is not clear upon the present record. It is not known if he was allotted any land which was being claimed by Kadir Bux. It is also not known why Ahmad Din and Ali Muhammad who appeared at the hearing of the review petitions did not raised this objection before the Commissioner. These questions call for further examination on the basis of evidence which could not have been taken by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. We are on the opinion, therefore, that the High Court acted properly in remanding the case. It will be in the interests of all concerned to have these disputed questions of fact decided once for all. No just exception can, therefore, be taken to the order of remand. We, accordingly, dismiss both these appeals.
24. Let the records be sent down to the Settlement Com--missioner (Lands) and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, for the disposal of the review petitions, as directed by the High Court, as expeditiously as possible after joining all necessary parties.
25. In the special facts of the case, however, we make no order as to the costs of these appeals.