1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This matter has come to this Court for the second the. On the first occasion, Civil Petition No. 320 of 1979 was disposed of by a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice S. Anwarul Haq, C.J. And Mr.Justice Mohammad Akram, as he then was.
2. The facts and background is lucidly given in the said order which is reproduced below:- The dispute in this case concerns an area of evacuee agricultural land measuring 57 Kanals and 4 Marlas, situate in village Naurozepur in Tehsil Hafizabad of District Gujranwala. It was allotted to a claimant displaced person Ghulaman, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1-3. On a Mukhbari application made by the petitioner Faiz Muhammad in 1963, the matter was examined by the Settlement authorities, and at last, by an order. Made on the 16th of April, 1977, a Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, held that an area of 57 Kanals 4 Marlas was in excess of the true entitlement of Ghulaman, but that the excess land had not been obtained by the allottee by fraud or misrepresentation, as it was a case of an incorrect calculation of his entitlement. He further observed that the allottee had put in lot of labour to bring this area under cultivation. Accordingly, he expressed the view that it was a fit case where the excess land ought to be sold to the allottee under section 12 of the Act, but as he did not possess the necessary power to dg so, he directed that the allottee should move the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner in this behalf within one month of the date of his order.
3. However, before the expiry of the period allowed by the learned Settlement Commissioner to the allottee to make necessary application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the sale of the excess land under section 12 of the Act, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allotted the excess land to the informant Faiz Muhammad by his order, dated the 11th of May, 1977. This order was challenged by the respondents by means of a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was partly accepted by a learned Judge by his order, dated the 19th of February, 1978, in the sense that while he did not formally set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 11th of May, 1977, yet he directed that the application submitted by the previous allottee Ghulaman for the sale of the land in his favour be first disposed of by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on merits.
4. The Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissed the respondents' application for the sale of land in their favour by his order, dated the 26th of June, 1978, observing that as the informant had got a vested right for the allotment of the resumed land, therefore, no land was available in this case to be sold to the previous allottee under section 12 of the Act of 1958. He did not at all advert to the points mentioned by the learned Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated the 16th of April, 1977, namely, that the excess land had not been obtained by the allottee by fraud or misrepresentation but had been given to him owing to incorrect calculation of his entitlement, and that he had put in considerable labour to bring the land under cultivation.
5. The respondents once again invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, and their petition was accepted by a learned Judge by his order, dated the 13th of March, 1979, and the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding afresh the question of the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the respondents in accordance with the observation made by the learned Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated the 16th of April, 1977. During the course of an elaborate order, the learned Judge in the High Court has reached the conclusion that the excess land had not, in fact, been resumed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated the 16th of April, 1977, and that it was a conditional order to the effect that the land was to be resumed only if the Chief Settlement Commissioner decided not to sell the same to the previous allottee, and it was only after such a decision that it could be allotted to the informant in terms of section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act.
6. Arguments of the parties were then noticed and the conclusion expressed was that "we consider, therefore, that the learned Judge in the High Court was right". With these observations the petition was dismissed on 13-5-1979.
7. The case then went up before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who by his order dated 20-8- 1980, found that the respondents were entitled to retain the excess land on payment of price in terms of section 3(1)(b) of Act XIV of 1975. Consequently, the application of the respondents dated 14-5-1977 was allowed and the excess land equal to 219 P.1. Units was allotted to their predecessor for sale at the rate of Rs.100 per P.I. Unit. The claim of the petitioner herein was rejected. The petitioner thereafter again moved the Lahore High Court (W.P.No. 11-R of 1981) which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 10-1-1981.
8. The only question raised before us was that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not competent under section 12 of the said Act to sell the land to the respondents.
9. This contention obviously cannot be accepted. The question whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner who sold the excess land to the allottees was the very question which had been agitated right upto this Court and the objection that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no power to sell the land to them was not taken in those proceedings. In fact, the accepted position was that he was the competent authority in this behalf and the following observation in this course in the previous order supports this impression:- "It is for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the question of sale in favour of the respondents, as he is the statutory authority invested with the necessary powers under the law."
10. It is, therefore, to late to raise this contention at this stage. Even otherwise as the learned Judge in the High Court has observed that the order of selling the excess land to the respondents in a case where no fraud or misrepresentation was committed was an equitable order and not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
11. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.