1. ' This writ petition concerns erstwhile evacuee property measuring 16 Kanals, Sq. No, 28, Kila 5 and 6 situated in Revenue Estate Gogran, Tehsil Lodhran, District Multan. This piece of property was allotted to Ghulam Nabi, at Khata No, 174 of Register RL-II. Proposal was made on 20-8-1955, which was finally confirmed on 15-9-1955. Ghulam Nabi died sometime in the year 1971. Exact date of his death is not ascertainable from the record. On demise of Ghulam Nabi, mutation of inheritance relating to the estate left by him including the suit property was attested in favour of his surviving heirs, respondents Nos. 4 to 9, on 26-9-1973. Aforesaid legal heirs sold the suit property to the petitioner vide sale mutation No, 654 sanctioned on 26-8-1974. Respondent No, 3, who claimed to be a prior allottee, filed an appeal in the Court of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and questioned the allotment of Ghulam Nabi. In the grounds of appeal, available at page 17 of this Court's file, it was averred by him that the suit property was confirmed in his name on 6-8-1956.
2. Appeal was filed on 2-4-1974. It may be of some interest to state that appeal was preferred against Ghulam Nabi, who, it seems had already expired. Vide order, dated 24-4-1975, learned Assistant Commissioner Lodhran, allowed the appeal and set aside allotment of Ghulam Nabi. Abdul Hassan, vendee of the suit property, felt aggrieved of the order passed on appeal and agitated matter in revision before Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan Revision was dismissed on the ground that after the repeal of evacuee laws, revisional jurisdiction was not available.
3. ' Petitioner, finding himself without any adequate remedy elsewhere, invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 26-12-1975 and has been placed before me today for hearing in presence of learned counsel for the parties. Mian M. Zafar Yasin, Advocate, appeared for Abdul Hassan, petitioner. It is contended that on the showing of Taj Muhammad himself his allotment was made on 6-8-1956 a date much later than that of Ghulam Nabi's allotment. It is also urged that no adverse order could have been passed by the Court of appeal without hearing the petitioner, who had purchased the suit property. Learned counsel further contends that the legal heirs of Ghulam Nabi, have disowned their appearance before the appeal Court. Settlement Department is represented by Sardar Ahmed Nawaz Qaiserani, Advocate.
4. He does not dispute the facts stated by Mian M. Zafar Yasin, Advocate. In fact, the department supports the case of writ petition. Sole contesting person in the field is respondent No,
3. It is contended for him that the suit land was earlier allotted to Rehman, father of respondent No, 3 in 1953. Rehman being a prior allottee, counsel for respondent No, 3 states, allotment in favour of Ghulam Nabi could not be made. It is further submitted that the vendee namely, Abdul Hussain Aid not join the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) to safeguard his own interests and consequently cannot be heard to say that he had been condemned unheard. It was also submitted that the writ petition is barred by laches as it has been brought after expiry of about 7/8 months of the order passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands).
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examination of the available material, I find that the learned counsel for the petitioner is on a much stronger ground when he says that the allotment of Ghulam Nabi, being prior in time and the petitioner being purchaser from heirs of Ghulam Nabi could not be deprived of the suit lands.
6. ' I have looked into the record. In the memorandum of appeal, Taj Muhammad, himself, admits that suit property was confirmed in his name on 6-8-1956. Allotment order has not been produced.
7. From the stand of respondent No, 3 himself that land was confirmed in his favour on 6-8-1956, it can safely be assumed that allotment of Ghulam Nabi was prior in time. Therefore, petitioner could not be disturbed, moreso when sale in his favour was not disputed by legal heirs of Ghulam Nabi.
8. As regards laches suffice it to say that the vendee was not made a party in appeal and when he came to know of the adverse order passed against him, he agitated the matter in revision before Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that he acquiesced or delayed the matter.
9. Revision was dismissed on 11-12-1975 and a few days thereafter, petition was filed in this Court. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to throw out the petition on the ground of delay after a lapse of over ten years. In the result what has been stated above, petition is allowed, impugned order, dated 24-4-1975, of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) is set aside and is declared to have been passed without lawful authority. Result of the aforesaid declaration is that the allotment of Ghulam Nabi, stands intact and the rights of Abdul Hassan in the suit property rer ins undisturbed.
10. Costs to be borne as incurred.