' This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.198-R and 199-R of 1985 as these arise in similar circumstances.
2. Petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Fazal Ahmad Khan (in W.P.No,198-R of 1985) was allotted land bearing Kills Nos.1, 2, 8 to 13, 18 to 22 situated in Chak No,57/G.B., Tehsil and District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). It was cancelled from the name of the allottee by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958 on 28-9 1970. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,198-R of 1971 wherein it was observed that "The precise facts of the case are that the land in dispute was allotted to Havaldar Major Darshan Singh son of Kishan Singh for acts of gallantry in the field. On the basis of the aforesaid grant mutation No,378 was attested in favour of the grantee on 13-6-1947. The case came to the notice of the Governor's Inspection Team who reported that the grantee not having taken possession and having left Pakistan the grant never materialised and remained the property of the State. According to the report of the Governor's Inspection Team the property was not an evacuee property and could not have been allotted to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest Fazal Ahmad Khan. The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has agreed with the aforesaid view and has canc,Iled the allotment from the name of the petitioners by means of his impugned order, dated 28-9-1970". Allowing the petition. The learned Judge directed the Chief Settlement Commissioner to make a reference to the Custodian under section 41 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act XII of 1957 to determine as to whether the property was evacuee or non-evacuee. It is stated that no action has been taken in pursuance of the directions of the High Court by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the petitioners are prepared to have any land available with the Chief Settlement Commissioner in satisfaction of their claim. It is obvious that their claim has remained pending all through these years. It is also submitted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner can no more make a reference to the Custodian under the aforesaid Act because the Act has since been repealed vide Act XIV of 1975.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department has submitted that if the petitioners are prepared to give up their claim with regard to the land earlier allotted and cancelled and want allotment from the available land, then the proper remedy for them is to apply to the relevant authorities for allotment of land in lieu of their pending claim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has produced proof of land available for allotment.
5. In the circumstances of the case, there is no denying the fact that the case of the petitioners for allotment has remained pending throughout. The petitioners are entitled to the satisfaction of their pending claim. The petitioners having given up their claim to the land in dispute, they will be entitled to alternate land to be allotted and le that be done in satisfaction of the pending claim.
The matter has remained in the melting pot for long enough, therefore, it is directed that the allotment in lieu of the pending claim of the petitioners shall be made from the available land within the next three months. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.