' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.234/R-85 to 237/R-85, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of Writ Petition No,234/R-85.
2. The facts are that the land in dispute was allotted to Chandar Khan respondent but the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 31-5-1981 cancelled his allotment. The operative part of his order is as under:- "..........I find that Chandar Khan respondent is not entitled to the allotment of the land in dispute. The revision petitions are accepted. The area measuring 115 Kanals comprising Khasras Nos.653, 655, 656, 664, 857, 858, 674, 665, 864, 652, 657, 675 and 676 (which was allotted to the petitioners on Khatas Nos.748 and 750 of the RL-II but was withdrawn on 20-8-1960 from them and was allotted to the respondent) is directed to be withdrawn/ cancelled from the allotment of the respondent for restoration to the petitioners. A copy of this order may be sent to the learned Assistant Commissioner, Kasur for implementation and restoration of the area comprising Khasras Nos.653, 655, 656, 664, 857, 858, 674 and 665, on Khata No,748 of the petitioners and area comprising Khasra Nos.864, 652, 657, 675 and 676 Khata No,750 of the RL-II."
3. In pursuance of this direction the Assistant Commissioner on 8-6-1981 issued 'Robkar' to the Tehsildar rquiring him, to give effect to the orders, dated 31-5-1981. Accordingly the Patwari vide entries Nos.375 and 376 both dated 9-6-1981 recorded in the "Roznamcha Waqiati" delivered the actual possession of some of the Khasra Numbers and 'Dakhal Malkana' of others to the petitioners.
It is to be seen that the land in dispute was exchanged by Chandar Khan with that of the respondents. Thus, the order, dated 31-5-1981, was practically implemented against the latter.
4. Aggrieved by the order, dated 8-6-1981 the respondents herein (excluding Chandar Khan) preferred 4 separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore, which were accepted by him by a consolidated order, dated 15-9-1985, under challenge in these writ petitions. He held that the Assistant Commissioner could implement the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner only in the RL-II Register and revenue-record but had no authority to eject the tenants in possession of the land. He treated the respondents as tenants and maintained that their dispossession was illegal.
5. Chandar Khan respondent is absent despite service. No one appears on his behalf. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the remaining respondents. The available record has also been examined. On behalf of the petitioners, on the rectitude of section 2(4) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, it is contended that the order, dated 31-5-1981 had to be executed by the Board of Revenue under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, since repealed, and that the Assistant Commissioner implemented the same as a functionary of the Board. According to their learned counsel, such implementation having been made under the repealed Statute was final and could not be subjected to appeal or revision under any law, including the Land Revenue Act.
7. There may be some merit in this argument but the case needs to be examined first from another angle. The respondents are actually aggrieved by the order, dated 31-5-1981 for, it is under this order that the allotment of Chandar Khan has been cancelled and consequently they are being deprived of the land in dispute. They, therefore, should have challenged the said order but admittedly except Chandar Khan, the others did not assail it. It was, therefore, idle for them to call in question the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that the order, dated 31-5-1981 did not embody any direction as to the dispossession of Chandar Khan, but the Assistant Commissioner went ahead to dispossess them and thus, travelled beyond the limits of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. It being so, he submitted that the respondents who were affected by the unwarranted implementation of the said order, were well within their rights to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner, under the provision of the Land Revenue Act.
The learned counsel also referred to the orders, dated 24-6-1981 and 27-1-1982 passed in Writ Petition No,3631R-81 filed by Chandar. Khan against the order, dated 31-5-1981 whereby status quo was ordered to be maintained and it was directed that whosoever was in possession of the land, would remain in possession. In the submission of the learned counsel, these orders are for the benefit of the respondents, and are enough to protect their possession.
9. Apparently these arguments are attractive but have no intrinsic value. Upon the language of section 2(4), the order, dated 31-5-1981 had to be executed under the Repealed Act. This calls for reference to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, which empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to dispossess an occupant found holding land without a valid allotment. The effect of the order, dated 31-5-1981 would be that after the cancellation of allotment of Chandar Khan, notionally the land became part of the Compensation Pool, wherefrom it was transferred to the petitioners against their verified claim. Needless to mention that the management and Control of the Compensation Pool wholly vested in the Settlement Authorities. Such being the position, in law, coupled with the fact, that the land had to be resorted to the petitioners, Chandar Khan was liable to be dispossessed. The respondents derived their rights, if any from Chandar Khan and thus also had to be dispossessed. The tenor of the order, dated 31-5-1981 shows that the land could not be left to remain with Chandar Khan or for that matter the respondents. The delivery of possession to the petitioners, is, thus, not open to any valid objection. In any case the Assistant Commissioner, acted on behalf of the Board of Revenue and it is doubtful that the execution of order made by him, could be assailed on the Revenue side.
10. As regards the Writ Petiton No,363/R-81, filed by Chandar Khan, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, the status quo order in the first instance was made on 24-6-1981 and then confirmed on 27-1-1982. But, the entries in the Roznamcha are dated 9-6-1981. It is thus obvious that the order, dated 31-5-1981, was executed on 9-6-1981 i.e. Before the issuance of the status quo order. The said order, therefore, cannot advance the cause of the respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised another contention that the respondents derived their rights from Chandar Khan and were in possession of the land as owner thereof, and thus, they could not claim the status of tenant; even if someone else occupied the land as tenant under Chandar Khan or under the respondents such tenant did not come forward to agitate against the delivery of possession. In these circumstances, it was argued that even if the appeal was competent, the reasons tor which the learned Additional Commissioner choose to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner, were wholly untenable.
12. These submissions appear to be well-grounded. Evidently the respondents who got the land in dispute, in exchange from Chandar Khan were in its possession in their capacity as owners and not as tenants. Their learned counsel has failed to show as to how they could be categorised as tenants. Admittedly, the tenants, if any, did not file any appeal. This would furnish another ground for removal of the impugned order.
13. Looked from any angle the impugned order has got to be set aside. These writ petitions are, therefore, accepted and the order,E dated 19-5-1985 declared to have been made without lawful authority and as of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.