' Land measuring 1474 Kanals 7 Merles situated in Mauza Sheikhupura Bedad, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura allotted in the name of one Yousaf Ali Khan, was cancelled in proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced. Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner on 16-1-1969. The heirs of the allottee filed Settlement Revision No. 34 of 1969 in which an order of status quo was issued on 26-3-1969.
Probably not aware of the order, a Special Allotment Committee ordered that the cancelled land be allotted to two persons including the petitioner. This is vide order dated 6-5-1969. Consequently, half of the land was allotted to the other person and the rest of the half to the petitioner on 24-5- 1969. The Settlement Revision was finally dismissed on 12-8-1971. Without realising that the cancelled land stood allotted in favour of another person and the petitioner, the same land was allotted in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 on 3-4-1972. The other person did not take any steps.
However, the petitioner filed six appeals against the allotment in favour of the respondents. The learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the contention of the respondents that since on the date of allotment in favour of the petitioner viz. 24-5-1969, there was a stay order issued in the Settlement Revision filed by the heirs of the earliest allottee on 26-3-1969, no allotment could be made on 24-5-1969. Therefore, he annulled this allotment and allowed allotments made in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to remain intact. This is vide order dated 13-6-1974. Hence this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although there was a stay order issued on 26-3-1969, but nobody knew about it and therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 24-5-1969 was perfectly valid especially when that was not even questioned by the person in whose favour the stay order was issued. In any case, when the main case in which the stay order was issued was dismissed on 12-8-1971, interim order of stay also lapsed. Therefore, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was valid. Secondly, the land confirmed to the petitioner could not be allotted to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 without even notice to the petitioner which was not, in any case, given.
3. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department, in the circumstances, is not in a position to oppose the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that since after giving the power-of-attorney in his favour, his client has never turned up for giving instructions. Therefore, he has no instructions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the newly-impleaded respondents has submitted that the entire cancelled land from the original allottee Yousaf Ali Khan was allotted to two persons including the petitioner and thereafter the same was allotted to respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The other person never challenged the allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6. Therefore, as far as the allotment in favour of the other person is concerned, that has to be allowed to remain intact. It is secondly submitted that the allotment in favour of the petitioner, during the operation of the stay order was void altogether and the Settlement Commissioner was quite right in setting aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and maintaining the same in favour of the respondents. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that under the impugned order dated 24-5-1969 the allotment had been made in favour of the other person and the petitioner with reference to Khasra numbers, therefore, the allotment in favour of the other person of the aforesaid Khasra numbers as submitted above, must remain intact which had been purchased lastly by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 3 adopts the arguments made by the learned counsel for the newly-impleaded respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
The allotment of the specified Khasra numbers in the order dated 24-5-1969 in favour of the petitioner while the stay order was in operation may be nebulous but when the Settlement Revision in which the stay order was issued was finally dismissed on 12-8-1971, the allotment in favour of the petitioner would be correct and be operative with full force. Secondly, the rights which had come to vest in the petitioner vide order of allotment in her favour dated 24-5-1969, could riot have been made to disappear in the thin air and the land given to the respondents, without even issuing a notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the allotment in favour of the respondents to the extent of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner dated 3-4-1972, was void altogether. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the petitioner who was allotted the land on 24-5-1969 could not have been deprived of her allotment simply because there was a stay order in the field though that had lapsed with the dismissal of the Settlement Revision itself when the same was dismissed on 12- 8-1971, much before the allotment of the area in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 on 3-4-1972.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 13-6-1974 by which he refused to maintain the allotment in favour of the petitioner and allowed the land allotted to the petitioner, to the respondents when the latter's allotment was three years later, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is thus allowed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.