' The dispute in this case relates to land measuring 57 Kanals 17 Marlas situate in village Chohechar, Chak No, 81/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. A proposal for allotment of the same was made in favour of the petitioners on 2-8-1966 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sheikhupura against 530 P.I.Us. No objection was raised to the allotment of land in dispute made in favour of the petitioners. The proposal, however, remained pending even after lapse of 15 days as envisaged under para. 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. It appears that Muhammad Jaffar respondent resident of the aforesaid village on 23-12-1975 applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for purchase of the land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner on 2-1- 1976 passed order to the following effect:- "If he qualifies as an occupant he may be allowed to purchases the land in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on' payment of Rs,100 per P.I. Unit and further if there is no Mukhbari application in respect of the said area."
' In compliance with the aforesaid order the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sheikhupura, vide his order, dated 13-5-1976 allowed Muhammad Jaffar respondent to purchase the disputed land. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land is dispute had been proposed in favour of the petitioners against their verified claim pending in the village and was not available for sale to the respondent. The proposed allotment of the land was not revoke' by the competent authority, before the land in dispute was sold to the respondent. It was further, stated that the impugned order had bee passed in petitioners absence as such is bad in law.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting responded No, 2, on the contrary submitted that the mere proposal of allotment of land in dispute existing in favour of the petitioners did not confer upon them a right to be heard. The land having not been finally confirmed in favour of the petitioners was rightly sold in favour of the respondent being available property.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone: through the documents on the file.
Undoubtedly the land in dispute: was proposed to be allotted to the petitioners and that proposal was not revoked or cancelled by the competent settlement authority. The land was not available for disposal by way of sale to the respondent No, 2 in the presence of subsisting order proposing allotment of land in dispute in favour of the petitioners. For this view reference can usefully be made to the law laid down in Wali Muhammad v. Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and others 1984 C M R 1574 and Mst. Inayat Bibi, and others v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner PLD 1978 Lah.
252. Moreover, the petitioners were condemned unheard when the impugned order of sale of the disputed land was made in favour of the contesting respondent.
5. At this stage learned counsel for the contesting-respondent submitted that the petitioners have no claim pending in the village for adjustment against the allotment of land. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, stated that petitioners' claim is still available in the village which could be adjusted against the allotment of land in dispute.
6. In these circumstances, the impugned orders whereby the land in dispute has been sold to Muhammad Jaffar respondent are untenable and the same are declared to have been passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without lawful authority and are of no consequence.
7. In the result this 'petition is allowed. The Notified Officer shall confirm the proposed allotment of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners against their claim pending in the village. In case the petitioners have no outstanding claim for adjustment against the land in dispute the impugned orders whereby the land in dispute has been sold in favour of Muhammad Jaffar respondent shall stand.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.