' On an application moved by the appellants under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, against the allottee, namely, Khushi Muhammad, the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 29th August, 1982 cancelled and resumed the excess land from the name of the latter but did not transfer the same to them as they failed to prove that their claim for agricultural land was pending. However, allotment of a part of the resumed land was made in favour of Siraj Din etc.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement authorities, Khushi Muhammad brought Writ Petition No, 415/R-82. Likewise Siraj Din etc. Who too were dissatisfied, filed Writ Petition No, 406/R-82. Both the writ petitions have been accepted and the case remanded to the Settlement authorities for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
3. So far as the appellants are concerned, Writ Petition No, 349/R-82 moved by them was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21st September, 1982 on the ground that the question as to whether or not their units were pending being a question of fact, constitutional jurisdiction of the Court could not be invoked.
4. We have heard Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, for the appellants and Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Khan for the Department. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that though at the time of hearing of the Mukhbari application they could not adduce proof as to availability of the effect that their units, but now they have mustered evidence to the effect that their claim for agricultural land is still lying unsatisfied. It is further submitted that as the impugned order of the settlement authorities, has already been set aside, in other two writ petitions, and the case sent back to them for fresh decision, the appellants may also be permitted to join those proceedings and substantiate the pendency of their units.
5. There is much force in these submissions. There is no dispute that it was on the basis of the information laid by the appellants, before the Settlement authorities that the excess units of the allottee were cancelled. The only reason for not transferring the resumed land to them was that it would not be ascertained then as to whether or not their units were pending. Since the necessary proof in this behalf is stated to be available with the appellants, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if they are heard in the remand-proceedings and given an opportunity to substantiate their stand. In view of the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the Department has no serious objection if this appeal is allowed.
6. Accordingly this appeal is accepted, order passed by the learned Single Judge recalled and the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 29th June 1982 qua the appellants, to the extent of refusing to transfer the resumed land to them set said. The case is remanded to the respondent, who is already seized of the remand-proceedings, in pursuance of the orders passed in other two writ petitions. Consequently the appellants' Mukhbari application shall be treated as pending and disposed of afresh in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.