' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No. 305-R-76 and Writ Petition No.306-R-76.
2. One Mst Asghari Begum wife of Tassadaq Hussain, a claimant displaced person, was allotted land measuring 112 Kanals 14 Marlas at Khata No.59 of Register R.L.II in Mauza Chahat Bhag Mal, District Sheikhupura, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 9-10-1963. Another piece of land measuring 35 Kanals 6 Marlas in Mauza Hinjarwala, District Sheikhupura, at Khata No.110 was also allotted in her name by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 9-5-1966. Major portion of the area was purchased by the petitioners vide Mutations Nos.308 and 1128, dated 2-6-1966 and 30-8- 1969 respectively. In proceedings under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958, on the motion of a Naib-Tehsildar, the allotment in the name of Mst. Asghari Begum was examined and was found to be valid and proper. The proceedings were consequently dropped by the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 27-12-1973.
According to the petitioners, an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was, again, filed. The application is annexed as Annexure 'H' and it is, dated 30-3-1974. However, on the top of the application as the date of institution it is recorded 2-12-1972.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no proceedings under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, could be started when such proceedings had already been held and the allotment of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was maintained.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the Mukhbar, has submitted that his client had filed the application before the repeal of the law. Secondly, that the allotment was obtained by the petitioner No.1 himself of land which is urban on a rural claim which could not be done and their claimant never existed. On the spot, there are houses or areas have been transferred or building sites.
5. Ch. Abdul Qadir, Advocate, appearing for Muhammad Yousaf and others in C.M. No. 1 of 1980, has submitted that in lieu of the land which the petitioners claim to have purchased, one Khasra number was exchanged with another Khasra No.780 which was and is a Dargah property.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a matter of consolidation and the applicant had taken the matter to the Board of Revenue and has lost. In any case, action taken under the Consolidation of Holding is not subject-matter of the present writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department has submitted that in view of Act LV of 1973 gazetted on 30-7-1973, the right was created in favour of an informant to file an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, therefore, a fresh application could be filed. It is also submitted that successive Mukhbari applications can be filed for disclosure of a fraud. Thirdly, it is contended that the petitioners have been issued a notice in the Mukhbari application and against such a notice no writ is competent. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner No.1 had manoeuvred the allotment and, therefore, no writ should be issued in aid of injustice.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, who is accompanied by the petitioner No. 1, on the latter's instructions and on his own authority has stated that if on the land in dispute there are houses already constructed by others or any portion of the land has already been transferred or auctioned by the Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the petitioners lay no claim thereto. However, the rest of the area, the petitioners are entitled to.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
They have been as contentious as possible but the substance of the controversy is that the petitioners purchased land on the basis of the allotments made by the public authorities and that the allotments were scrutinized in 'exercise of the powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and were found to be valid on 27-12-1973. Thereafter, there was no question of starting all over again proceedings under aforesaid provision. People are entitled to remain in peace and undisturbed at the hands of public authorities, who are required to settle people and not to unsettle them. Power under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, having once been exercised, it could not be exercised again. The writ petition is allowed subject to the condition that if on the land in dispute some other persons than the petitioners have raised houses or if some portion has been'transferred or auctioned by the Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, or latter Schemes, to the extent of those areas, the petitioners will have no right. Rest of the allotted area purchased by them they will enjoy in peace henceforth. The petitioners are allowed costs to be paid by the respondent No.2, the Mukhbar, and the Settlement Department equally.
' WRIT PETITION NO. 306-R-76
10. Mst. Amina Khatoon, a displaced person, was allotted land measuring 191 Kanals 19 Marlas at Khatd No.115 of Register R.L.II in Mauza Hinjranwala, District Sheikhupura, on 10-1-1966. One Faqir-ud- Din filed a Mukhbari application which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner on 5-6-1968. Out of the aforesaid land, the petitioners purchased an area measuring 160 Kanals one Marla vide Mutation No. 1101 sanctioned on 12-4-1969. Another Mukhbari application was filed by one Bashir which too was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner on 18-1-1972. It seems that the area was full of Mukhbars. Another Mukhbar cropped up who filed another Mukhbari application on 2-12-1974 when all the relevant Settlement Laws have been repealed from 1-7-1974 vide Act XIV of 1975. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
11. The contentions of the learned counsel for the parties are the same as in Writ Petition No.305-R- 76.
12. From the statements of facts, it is quite clear that the petitioners having purchased the land on the basis of public record which record has repeatedly been examined and found to be correct, are entitled to remain in peace. No further proceedings after the dismissal of repeated applications and repeal of the law were competent in law. The proceedings are waste of public time. These are, therefore, quashed. The petition is allowed. The costs to be paid by the Mukhbar and the Settlement Department equally.
13. The petitioners will be entitled to remain in peace of the land purchased by them subject to the same condition as stated in Writ Petition No.305-R of 1976. They shall have no claim to any piece of land over which somebody else has raised house or the areas have been auctioned or transferred by the Settlement Authorities on the urban side.