1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The dispute in this case relates to Killa No, 21 of Square No, 11 in Chak No, 73/J. B., Tehsil and District Lyalipur (now Faisalabad).
2. ' According to the findings of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the highest officer in the departmental hierarchy, the land in dispute was proposed in the name of respondent No, 2 on 18-6-1955 and was confirmed in his favour on 21-1-1958. However, before the said land was actually confirmed in his favour this land was again proposed on 27-7-1956 in the name of Nathey Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and was confirmed in his favour on 17-3-1977. Thus, although the land was proposed in favour of respondent No, 2 earlier but it was confirmed in favour of the appellant on date earlier to his confirmation. Thus the very same land was allotted and confirmed in favour of two parties.
3. ' The respondent No, 2 feeling aggrieved by the confirmation or the land, which had earlier been proposed for allotment and was also subsequently confirmed in his favour, filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, but the same was dismissed on 10-9-1960 on the ground of limitation. Respondent No, 2 then tiled a revision petition before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 25-7-1962. However, prior to the institution of his revision petition, Nathey Khan had died. Consequently, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order, dated 21-8-1962 "filed" the revision petition on the ground that it was directed against a dead man. On 1-10-1962, respondent No, 2 filed another revision, but this time against Wali Muhammad himself - the appellant herein -before Malik Hakim Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. This was accepted on 27-12-1966. Consequently, Killa No, 21 which was the bone of contention between the parties, was given to respondent No,
2. Aggrieved by the said order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court.
4. ' Before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant herein, that the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner having dismissed the appeal of respondent No, 2 on the ground of limitation, the said order could not have been upset without adverting to the ground of limitation, which was the ground, on which the appeal was decided. It was further argued-that the revision petition filed before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner against the appellant herein was also badly barred by time and since the power of condonation of delay is not conferred on the Settlement Commissioner under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, his order was bad in law. It was also urged that the learned Settlement Commissioner had decided the revision petition without notice to the appellant herein. Consequently, his order was bad on that account as well.
5. ' The learned Judge in the High Court repelled all these contention. He held that since the order of confirmation in favour of Nathey Khan, father of the appellant, was passed behind the back of respondent No, 2, the ground of limitation did not arise because time was to run against respondent No, 2, not from the date of the order that was impugned before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but from the date when he became aware of it. In this connection, the decision in Mahmood Aslam v. Mehdi Hussain (1) was relied upon. As regards the ground of the revision being barred by time, it was held that Malik Hakim Khan was, in fact, also a Rehabilitation Commissioner and not only a Settlement Commissioner and there was no period of limitation prescribed for revision preferred before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. As for the ground that the order passed by Malik Hakim Khan was ex parte against the appellant it was observed that his order was passed after issuance of a proclamation in a newspaper giving notice to the appellant to appear before him, but he had failed to do so. In these circumstances, it was not possible to accept the assertion of the appellant that he was not given an opportunity to appear before the Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner to explain the case. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed vide order, dated 10-1-1974. Hence this appeal by leave of this Court.
6. ' In support of this appeal, the learned counsel firstly submitted that the finding of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, as upheld by the learned Judge of the High Court that the proposal of the area in dispute was made in the first instance in favour of respondent No, 2 was erroneous, because, in fact, the proposal of allotment made in favour of respondent No, 2 was actually made on 18-6-1957 and not on 18-6-1955. On this basis, it was argued that since both the proposal of allotment as well as the confirmation in favour of the appellant were prior in point of time, the order of allotment in his favour, could not be set aside by the Rehabilitation/ Settlement Commissioner.
7. ' We are afraid that it is not possible for us to accept this submission. The decision of the learned Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner was based on the sole ground that the proposal of allotment was proposed in favour of respondent No, 2 on 18-6-1955 and that in the presence of the aforesaid proposal, the same area could not be subsequently proposed and later on allotted in favour of the appellant. Consequently, if the finding of the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner on this point was erroneous, it had to be challenged before the High Court. This was not done. On the other hand, it appears to have been assumed by the appellant that the finding of the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner that the proposal in favour of respondent No, 2 was made earlier in point of time to the proposal made in his favour was correct, but that notwithstanding this fact, the order of allotment in his favour being earlier, the same was not liable to be interfered with. This is evident from Ground No, (V) in the writ petition filed before the High Court, which reads as follows :- "(V) That the order of respondent No. 1 is unsound in law because the mere proposal in favour of any person does not create any rights and since the land in dispute was confirmed in the name of the petitioner on 17-3-1957, the same could not be allotted or confirmed to any other person after that date."
8. ' This brings us to the second contention raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, that even if the land was proposed in favour of respondent No, 2 prior in point of time since the land was confirmed in {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 Lab. 6 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' favour of the appellant, the said order had to prevail, as the dates for the proposal have no significance.
9. The contention, thus, is that a mere proposal to allot land does not confer any right and, consequently, respondent No, 2 could not have an A preference only on the ground that the proposal to allot the land was mad in his favour earlier than it was made in favour of the appellant.
10. ' We are afraid we cannot agree.
11. ' A proposal is an essential step towards the allotment and confirmation of the land in favour of a party. This is evident from the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme itself. Para. 64 of the said Scheme clearly shows that before a piece of land can be allotted to a claimant, a proposal is to be drawn up and after proposals have been drawn up and checked by the Tehsildar,'Mukhtiarkar, and/or the Revenue Assistant, the Rehabilitation Authority competent to finalize the allotment will visit the village and examine the proposals, as laid down in para. 68 of the Scheme. The competent authority after visiting the village and making such modifications, as it may consider necessary, will announce the proposed allotment to the claimant and give an unsigned khatauni, to enable any objection to be made to the proposal, within 15 days. After the expiry of the aforesaid period, the competent Rehabilitation Authority will again visit the village, and after hearing the objections provisionally finalize the proposals, subject to final confirmation after payment of the rehabilitation fee at the prescribed rate.
12. ' It is, thus, manifest that, in the presence of a proposal in favour of the one party, the same area cannot be proposed in favour of another, unless the earlier proposal is withdrawn for some reason and a fresh proposal is made in favour of the other party. In this case, the competent Rehabilitation Authority has not only made two opposing proposals but has accepted and confirmed the proposal made in favour of both the parties with regard to the same land. Hence, one of the two allotments could not stand and it only seems proper that the allotment, which was based on the proposal, which was made subsequently and without cancelling the earlier, would have to yield.
13. ' The importance of a proposal, under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme has been highlighted by a remarkable decision given by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (consisting of Muhammad Iqbal, C. J. And S. S. Jan, J.) in the case of Mst. Mayat Bibi etc. v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner (1). In this case, the proposal for allotment of land were made in favour of the petitioners before the High Court, who possessed verified claims of agricultural land abandoned in India in accordance with the provisions of, paragraph 64 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, Part II. However, before the proposals could be confirmed, the Office of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab, issued a memorandum on 25-6-1973 addressed to all settlement authorities in the Province ordering that the allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land against verified claims/entitlement certificates be stopped with immediate effect and all concerned officers were directed not to make further allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land against any claim/entitlement certificates. The proposals already made and not yet confirmed were ordered to stand cancelled. This memorandum of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was challenged before the High Court on (1)
14. PLD 1978 Lah. 252 the ground that it was ultra vires the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, in a carefully considered judgment, herd that the memorandum in question was of no legal effect and directed that the proposals already existing in favour of the petitioners should be considered as still subsisting and be disposed of in accordance with law.
15. ' We are inclined to agree with the view taken in the above judgment that the proposals made in favour of the claimants under para. 64 of the Scheme should not be overridden in the manner sought to be done by the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, in the said case.
16. ' The upshot is that the view taken by the High Court that in the presence of a subsisting order proposing allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the respondent No, 2, the allotment of the same land in favour of the appellant was not in accordance with law, especially when the proposal to allot the land in favour of respondent No, 2 was also subsequently implemented and the land allotted to him, is quite unexceptionable.
17. ' Accordingly, this appeal must fail and is dismissed hereby. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents there shall be no order as to costs.