In proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on the claim of Diwan Bakhsh and Fazal Hussain sons of Miran Bakhsh, allotments made to the extent of 36,000 P.I. Units earlier in time, were left intact and the excess allotment subsequently made in various villages of Gujranwala District were cancelled. It was further observed that "in addition to the above allotments of land, all the allotments of land, confirmed in the revenue estates of Girote, Roda, Nurpur, Rangpur, Lakhoo, Thatti Mekrani, Areekpur, Dhak, and Khairpur, District Sargodha shall also be cancelled in toto."
"All subsequent transactions of the land involved in the above allotments, being illegal, shall stand void, inoperative, and without legal effect. The illegal occupants may be directed to render the accounts of mesne profits derived by them, for the period they had remained in unlawful possession thereof, and the same be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue." This is, vide order of the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, dated 26-2-1973.
The present dispute relates to an allotment of nearly 400 Kanals (actually 399 Kanals 19 Niarlas) out of the total allotment of 800 Kanals at Khata No.1373 of the R.L. 11 of village Noorpur, Tehsil and District Khushab in lieu of the claims of the aforesaid two claimants made on 4-6-1966. This area of about 400 Kanals was purchased through registered sale-deed by the petitioner on 13-1-1970.
Mutation No.8054 was sanctioned in his favour on 10-11-1971 as amended by mutation of exchange No.8142, dated 17-8-197Y. About this allotment two facts need be noted; firstly, that the allotment was made after the exhaustion of the entire claims of the claimants. Secondly, that from the quotation of the portion of the judgment above made, the allotment of various estates including the estate in question Noorpur was cancelled in toto. The- allotments were not. Individually examined, nor the petitioners, according to him, was issued any notice, nor, was he heard before the impugned order was passed. It was behind his back and so contrary to the rules of natural justice. Against the order of . The Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26-2-1973, a Writ Petition No.471-R/73 was filed, in which the operation of the impugned order was suspended on 6-6-1973. The claimant allottees also filed Writ Petition No.492-R/73 in which the petitioner got impleaded, vide Civil Miscellaneous No.4/74, dated 4-9-1974, and in this Writ Petition too the order of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 2ti-2-1973 was suspended, vide order, dated 15-6-1973. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the same impugned order on 26-7-1973 and status quo order was passed on 30-7-1973 and the suit was posted to 13-9-1973.
2. The land in dispute cancelled from the name of the claimant --allottees which had been purchased by the petitioner through registered sale-deed, dated 13-1-1970 and for which mutation had been sanctioned on 10-11-1971, without cancellation thereof was proposed for allotment in the names of two persons Wazir Muhammad and Kalu, respondents Nos.9 and 10 on 12-6-1973 and two days later it was confirmed in their favour on 14-6-1y73. Mutation No.8324 after cancellation of the allotment from the name of the original claimant allottees was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government on 12-8-1973. On the same day, then, in the names of the said two allottees Wazir Muhammad and Kalu, vide Mutations Nos.8325 and 8326. On the same day the land was sold by them and mutated in favour of respondents Nos.11 to 14 i.e. 12-8-1973.
The petitioner complained to the Chief Settlement Commissioner about the illegal cancellation of the mutation in his favour and allotment of the land to respondents Nos. 9 and 10 and on the same day the sale by them in favour of respondents Nos.11 to 14, on which the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 13-12-1973 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha as follows:- "This is a serious matter. D. C. May please personally look into the matter and take appropriate action."
A report was submitted to the D.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner that "the orders, dated 6- 6-1973 and 15-6-1973 passed by the High Court should be implemented forthwith." It was agreed to on 13-4-1974. When Writ Petition No.492-R/73 in which the petitioner had got himself impleaded as a party, came up for hearing, the learned Judge of the High Court passed the following order: "The C.M. Does not satisfy requirements of Chapter IV of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders. It, therefore, cannot be converted into constitutional petition. The C. M. Is disallowed. The petitioner may file an independent writ petition, if so advised."
This is, vide order, dated 15-3-1983. The petitioner had filed the afore titled Constitutional petition on 30-4-1983.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 26-2- 1973 had been passed without impleading the petitioner or issuing him a notice. Therefore, the same being contrary to rules of natural justice, is liable to be quashed. It was secondly submitted that the impugned order, dated 26-2-1973 was suspended by the High Court in Writ Petition No.471- R/73 on 6-6-197:; and, therefore, no allotment of the land in quashment could be proposed in the names of Wazir Muhammad and Kalu, respondents Nos.9 and 10 on 12-6-1973 nor it could be confirmed two days later on 14-6-1973 in their favour. It was also contended that the allotment in favour of these two persons is absolutely illegal and bogus for the reason that the land was not available having earlier been allotted and sold in favour of the petitioner and mutation stood sanctioned in his name. The land was not put on the Khata of the Central Government until then. It was done later, vide Mutation No.8324, dated 12-8-1973. So unless the land, were on the Khata of the Central Government, it would not have been allotted nor could have been allotted to the aforesaid two persons earlier than 12-8-1973. It was, then, contended that the allotment in the name of the aforesaid two persons is obviously a bogus affair because they had no more interest in the land then to pass it away as soon as mutations were sanctioned in their favour on 12-8-1973 to the respondents Nos.11 to 14 on 12-8-1973. Learned counsel has also referred to various instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that areas cancelled and resumed in exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 were not to be allotted without prior permission from the Chief Settlement Commissioner and that if such an action had been taken, that: should be reversed. It is submitted that in the present case the Chief Settlement Commissioner had directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter to the effect that. "This is a serious matter. D.C. May please personally look into the matter and take appropriate action," and the D.C. Had directed that the orders of the High Court, dated 6-6-1973 and 15-6-1973 be implemented, against which nobody, including the respondents, had demurred.
4. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department and respondents Nos. 11 to 14 have submitted that the petition suffers from laches because it was filed against the impugned order, dated 26-2- 1973 on 30-4-1983. Secondly, that the petitioner had filed a civil suit on 30-7-1973 and he dia not pursue that.
5. In reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the impugned order, dated 26-2-1973 W.P. No. 471-R/73 teas filed in which the impugned order was suspended on 6-6-1975 and his predecessors-in-interest, the claimant-allottees had also filed Writ Petition No. 492-R/7,) in which the petitioner had got himself impleaded but later on where the learned Single Judge disallowed this application and observed that the "petitioner may file are independent writ petition, if so advised," the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition on 30-4-1983. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has been diligent going from pillar to post to the civil Court, Settlement Department and had come to the High Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the record with their assistance. As regards delay, the petitioner has been knocking at all available doors for justice and that also explains the suit in civil Court, though not knowing that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. As far as the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26-2-1973 is concerned, that had allowed the original claimant-allottee maximum allotment to the extent of 36000 P.I. Units made prior in time and had cancelled the excess allotment subsequently made. The order is perfectly correct and legal. As far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no doubt that he was neither impleaded as a party nor was he heard. Further, individual allotments in nearly 9 villages were cancelled in toto with one stroke of pen by a general observation, as would` appear from the quotation out of the impugned order, made above. If the petitioner were impleaded as a party or heard, he could say that notwithstanding the cancellation of the allotment from the name of his! Predecessor-in-interest, he being a bona fide purchaser for value on-- the basis of public record through a registered sale- deed for which mutation had also been sanctioned in his favour, he be sold the same land. It would have been open to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to grant the prayer. Secondly, the allotment made in favour of Wazir Muhammad and Kalu, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 on 12-6-1973 and confirmed even two days later when in such cases notice for a period of 15 days is provided, on 14- 6-1973, does not appear to be genuine for two reasons; firstly, that the land had not yet been mutated in the, Khata of the Central Government and without that it could not be allotted in favour of the aforesaid because the mutation in favour of the Central Government bearing No. 8324 was sanctioned on 12-8-1973. Secondly, the whole affair appears to be, to say the least, unusual and carried through in undue haste which would show it to be bogus because on the day the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government on 12-8-1973, the land was mutated from the Khata of the Central Government in the name of Wazir Muhammad and Kalu, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 on 12-8-1973 and from their names in favour of respondents Nos. 11 to 14 on the same day viz. 12-8-1973. The allotment in the names of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 clearly appear to sell the same, the same day. On to rest ns of the Chief Settlement it Commissioner, dated 13-12-1971, after as enquiry, the D.C. Additional Settlement Commissioner had directed on 13-4-1674 that the orders, dated 6-ti-1973 and 15-6-1973 passed by the High Court be implemented which orders were for suspension .Of the order of the Settlement I commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26-2-1973. The order of the D. C . /Additional Settlement Commissioner was never challenged by the respondents Nos. 11 to 14. The most important and all pervasive point is that the High Court suspended the operation of the order of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26-2-1973, vide order, dated 6-6-1973 and, dated 15-6-1973. Therefore, all actions taken after 6-6-1973 either by way of allotment or confirmation in favour of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 or mutations sanctioned in favour of the Central Government, then in favour of the respondents Nos. 9 and 10; or, respondents Nos. 11 to 14 will be of no consequence. The arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 11 that the order, dated 6-6-1973 was passed in Writ Petition No. 471/R-73 and petitioner was not a party therein loses Sight of the fact that if the basic order stands suspended all the superstructure will lose ground and fall down. Secondly, similar order passed in W.P. No. 492-R/73 in which the petitioner became a party, on 15-6-1973 will also lead to the effect that the basic order having been suspended the subsequent allotments will be rendered ineffective and will quite clearly result that the land will not be mutable in favour of the Central Government on 12-8-73 nor from it in favour of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 nor in favour of respondents Nos- 11 to 14. From all angles, the petitioner is entitled to be heard. Allotment of land in favour of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 and its subsequent transfer in favour of respondents Nos. 11 to 14, after suspension of the basic order, are without lawful authority. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner to hear the petitioner and even if the order of the Settlement Commissioner Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26-2-1973 is to be maintained on facts the case of the petitioner.
Being a bona fide purchaser for value on the basis of public record through a registered sale-deed for which a mutation was also sanctioned in his favour about 13 years age, will be considered for sale in accordance with law as it prevailed in 1973. The petition is accordingly disposed of but, in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.