' These two Writ Petitions Nos.302-R and 303-R of 1978 by Abdul Haleem petitioner arise from the orders, dated 16-8-1977 of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, respondent No,
1. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. In Writ Petition No,302-R of 1978, the dispute relates to the transfer of agricultural land measuring 12 Kanals and 3 Marlas comprising of Khasras Nos.1874 and 1876 in village Chitti Goraya, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. In Writ Petition No,303-R of 1978, the dispute relates to land measuring 23 Kanals and 2 Marlas comprising of Khasras Nos.1871, 1873 and 1877 in village Chitti Goraya.
3. The facts leading up to these two writ petitions, briefly, arethat Mst. Gul Begum, respondent No,3 is a Jammu and Kashmir refugee. She was allotted the disputed land. Thereafter, on her application and with her consent, alternative land measuring 35 Kanals and 10 Marlas comprising of Khasras Nos.30, 31, 32 and 34 was allotted to her on 12-3-1966 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. So, the land originally allotted to her was cancelled from her name and the same being available, was allotted to Muhammad Rafiq and confirmed against his verified claim on 19- 3-1966. Mst. Gul Begum, however, filed appeal against the order, dated 2-3-1966 before Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore which was dismissed on 3-7-1967. It may be noted that this order was not further challenged by Mst. Gul Begum respondent No,3. The petitioner purchased the disputed land from Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Haneef, the original allottees for Rs:7,500.
The mutations were sanctioned and given effect in the revenue record. Mst. Gul Begum then filed appeal against the order, dated 19-3-1966 of confirmation of the disputed land in favour of Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Hanif, the original allottees which was converted into revision and entrusted to Settlement Commissioner, respondent No,1, who vide impugned order, dated 18- 8-1977 restored the disputed. Khasras to Mst. Gul Begum, respondent No,1 hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the p titioner mainly contended that the petitioner, who is a bona fide purchaser for value, has been condemned unheard. He was neither impleaded as party by respondent No,3 in appeal which was subsequently converted into revision nor the Settlement Commissioner, respondent No,1 gave him any notice to contest the revision petition and that the order, dated 3-7-1967 whereby alternative land was given to Mst. Gul Begum, respondent No,3 having not been challenged, had attained finality and as such, respondent No,3 had no right over the disputed property. The learned counsel for Settlement Department has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noted that Mst. Gul Begum has been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
5. I have considered the submissibns made by the learned counse for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that Mst. Gul Begum was allotted land A in exchange of the disputed land on 12-3-1976. She filed appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissione on 3-7-1967. This order was not further challenged by her and as such had attained finality. In the presence of the orders, dated 12- 3-196 and 3-7-1967, the disputed land could not have been restored to her through impugned order. Furthermore, the petitioner, who was bon fide purchaser for value of the disputed land was condemned unheard.
6. For what has been said above, the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.