' This order will dispose of Writ Petitions No.485-R of 1967, 486-R of 1967 and 487-R of 1967 as these challenge the same orders.
2. Some lands were purchased and price paid by the evacuee but entries to this effect were not made in their favour in the revenue record. These were treated as State land. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, on 15-5-1963 issued instructions to the effect that since the evacuee had deposited the entire purchase price, deeds were duly executed, the mere omission to give effect to these transactions in the revenue record would be immaterial and the property shall vest in the evacuees and deem to have so vested in the Custodian from 1-3- 1947. So the land in question being already evacuee may be utilized for allotment to the displaced persons. Tufail Muhammad, respondent No.4 in the first petition, Ziledar Khan, predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 in the second petition and Nizam Din, predecessor-in-interest of Ali Muhammad respondent No. 4 since deceased and represented by his heirs, in the third petition, moved the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur saying that the lands in dispute being treated as State lands, were in fact evacuee and should be allotted in their favour.
The Officer referred to the memorandum of the Chief Settlement Commissioner mentioned above and held that "since the discovery has been made by the petitioners in these cases, they are entitled to have them according to the extent of their units". This is vide order dated 17-12-1963. In pursuance of this order the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lyallpur issued a Robkar for allotment of land in favour of the applicants mentioned above to the Chairman Allotment Committee, Toba Tek Singh on 27-12-1963. The actual allotments of land made in favour of Tufail Muhammad at R.L. II No.412 of village Kirun Chak No.151/GB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Faisalabad of an area measuring 47 Kanals 5 Marlas; in favour of Ziledar Khan, an area measuring 34 Kanals on R.L.II No.410 of the same estate; and in favour of Nizam Din at R.L.II No.11 of the same estate of an area measuring 34 Kanals 16 Marlas, by the Allotment Committee headed by the Chairman on 23- 12-1964.
3. Petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Ghulam Hussain claimant having died, they filed appeals against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Toba Tek Singh, dated 27-12-1963 saying that they were the temporary allottees of the estate and were entitled to the allotment of the land in question. The appeals were dismissed as barred by time by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) Faisalabad vide order dated 17-6-1964. They filed revision petitions in which the delay was condoned but on merits the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) being Settlement Commissioner as well, found that the order dated 27-12-1963 showed that that was passed in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 17-12-1963 as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in which he had treated the respondents as informers.
Therefore, notwithstanding the petitioner's being temporary allottees of the estate, they were not entitled to preference. He thus dismissed the revision petitions vide order dated 19-1-1969. The petitioners have filed the aforetitled Constitutional petitions challenging the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 27-12-1963, whereby the Chairman, Allotment Committee was directed to make allotment to the respondents by order dated 17-6-1964 by which their appeals against the last mentioned order were dismissed, and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 19-1-1967 by which their revisions were dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners being the temporary as well as the permanent allottees of the estate and having pending units, were entitled to the allotment of the land in dispute in preference to the respondents to whom the land has been allotted as informers but they were not the informers as the land had been directed to be allotted by the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself dated 15-5-1963.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-allottees has submitted that these cases were brought to him by Ali Muhammad, respondent No.4 in the last petition but he has never contacted him again.
Once his son came to him but he never returned. He has, therefore, no instructions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record and was shown photostat copies of R.L. II mentioned above making allotment of land in dispute in favour of the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest by the Allotment Committee on 23-1-1964. These are also placed on record. There is no doubt that the petitioners were entitled to the allotment of land in lieu of their pending units being the temporary as well as the permanent allottees of the estate. Their deprivation has given lot of concern but there are two points to be taken note of. First, that the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 17-12-1963 by which the respondents were found to have led to the discovery of the evacuee property and thus entitled to the allotment of the land to the extent of their units, was never challenged either in appeals, revisions or even in these writ petitions. Therefore, their entitlement established under the said order cannot be avoided. Secondly, the petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 27-12-1963 in which the Chairman of the Allotment Committee was directed to make allotment to the respondents, by way of appeals and revisions and then in these petitions. However, this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was only a Robkar. The actual orders of allotment in favour of the respondents by the Allotment Committee headed by the Chairman, dated 23-1-1964, as would appear from the allotments made in favour of the respondents on their respective R.L. II mentioned above. These orders of actual allotment in favour of the respondents dated 23-1-1964 were never challenged in appeals or revisions, nor, in these petitions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the allotments were made on 23-1-1964 in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land)
Lyallpur, dated 27-12-1963 and this order was challenged in appeals and revisions and in these petitions and if this is set aside, the allotments made on 23-1-1964 would automatically collapse, is not quite correct because how can actual orders of allotment made on 23-1-1964 be made to collapse when these had never been challenged in appeals, revisions or in the writ petitions? It does not seem correct that if in pursuance of a direction an actual order if passed conferring rights in people, the order conferring rights in the people may be made to disappear when never challenged by declaring that the order in pursuance of which the actual rights were conferred, was not correct. It does not appear to be right or legal to avoid or annul an order of conferment of proprietary rights without being challenged as if by way of a side-wind. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the feeling that the petitioners being temporary and permanent allottees of the estate should have been allotted the land in dispute in lieu of their pending claims, the allotments made in favour of the respondents more than 21 years ago on 23-1-1964, cannot be set aside when their 'entitlements' to allotment found by the D.C./Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 17-12-1963 and 'actual allotments' in their favour on 23-1-1964 have never been challenged in appeals, revisions or in these petitions. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.