' Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner Deenu alias Alam Din son of Suleman is a displaced person who in the wake of the partition of Indo-Pak Sub- continent came over to Pakistan and settled in village Jallah, Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan (now Vehari). He filed Claim No, 2150 in respect of the land abandoned by him in village Moddi, Tehsil Sarsa, District Hissar. Another person named Alam Din whose father's name was also Suleman and belonged to the village of the petitioner also filed a claim for the land left by him in that village.
Central Record Office verified the petitioner's claim for 10 Biggas and 12 Biswas which, in fact, was the entitlement of Alam Din son of Suleman and not of the petitioner.
2. On receipt of the aforesaid verification, an area measuring 7 Kanals was confirmed to the petitioner on 18-8-1951 at Khata No, 7 of Register R. L. II of village Jallah, Tehsil Mailsi. It is agreed by all the parties before me that the area allotted/confirmed to the petitioner was equivalent to 56 P. I.
Units. It appears that Alam Din whose holding came to be verified on the petitioner's claim moved an objection petition in the Central Record Office whereupon the verification made on the petitioner's claim was cancelled/withdrawn on 4-11-1957. Petitioner, however continued to hold the allotment in question.
3. Ghulam Rasul respondent No, 1 moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on 28-3-1974 seeking cancellation of the petitioner's aforementioned allotment. It was alleged in this application that the area of 10 Biggas and 12 Biswa s verified on the petitioner's claim, in fact, belonged to Alam Din son of Suleman and not to the petitioner and the entitlement of the latter was only 2 Biggas and 17 Biswas which was still unverified. The application moved by Ghulam Rasul respondent was inquired into by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Multan who by his order dated 25-8-1975 found the allegation to be correct, and therefore, cancelled the allotment of the petitioner made at Khata No, 7 of Register R. L. II and directed that the area measuring 7 Kanals equal to 56 P. I. Units be allotted to Ghulam Rasul respondent. Petitioner challenged this order in writ petition No, 112-R of 1976 in which he took up the position that his entitlement had not been verified and if the same was verified, the area allotted to him would be within his entitlement. The learned Judge, who heard that writ petition summoned the record from the Central Record Office to ascertain to correct factual position. On perusal of the record, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to the verification of his claim according to the record received from India. Writ petition was accordingly allowed, impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) dated 25-8-1975 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that he would entrust it to an officer of competent jurisdiction for fresh decision of the matter in accordance with law.
4. After the aforesaid remand, matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner (L) who, after examining the record received from India and after hearing the parties, found that the petitioner had the entitlement of only 2 Biggas and 17 Biswas whereas an area of 10 Biggas and 12 Biswas which was the entitlement of another person named Alam Din was verified on the petitioner's claim No, 2150. It was further found that the petitioner's entitlement of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswas was still lying unverified. Having so found, the learned Settlement Commissioner proceeded to hold by order dated 27-2-1980 that "the claim which Deenu could get was only 2 Biggas 17 Biswas but he got 10 Biggas 12 Biswa s of land against a wrong claim of Elam Din hence the land allotted to Deenu son of Suleman is cancelled and may be allotted to Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Ghaffoor informer against his claim as per Rule".
5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 27-2- 1980, petitioner filed the present constitutional petition in this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the findings of the learned Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner's entitlement was only to the extent of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s and verification of 10 Biggas and 12 Biswas on his claim was incorrect and was, therefore, rightly cancelled in 1957. His grievance, however, is that it has been incorrectly found by the learned Settlement Commissioner that 10 Biggas and 12 Biswas of land was allotted to the petitioner. Submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was allotted only 7 Kanals of land which is within his entitlement of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswas. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not deny that according to the record, petitioner had an entitlement of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s. They also admit that the land allotted/confirmed to the petitioner is only Kanals which is equivalent to 56 P. I. Units as found by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 25-8-1975. Their contention, however, is that the petitioner cannot retain the allotment in dispute unless his entitlement was formally verified by the Central Record Office. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is nothing on the record to show that 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s is equivelant to 56 P. I. Units.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
No doubt, there is no formal verification of the petitioner's entitlement but it has been found as a fact by the learned Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner has an entitlement of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s. This finding has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to an order of the 0. S. D./C.R.O.
Dated 29-11-1981 placed on the present record as Annexure `K.' wherein it has been found that 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s of `Barani' land is lying unverified in the name of the petitioner. The Officer, however, expressed his inability to issue the formal verification order on account of the repeal of Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws. In the circumstances, it is wholly unnecessary to insist on the formal verification order. In the presence of the undisputed finding that the petitioner has an entitlement of 2 Biggas and 17 Biswa s, the learned Settlement Commissioner should have decided as to whether the allotment obtained by the petitioner was within his entitlement or was in excess' thereof. In fact, this was the purport of the order of remand passed by this Court. Learned Settlement Commissioner, appears to have proceeded on factually incorrect premises that the petitioner had obtained allotment of 10 Biggas and 12 Biswas.
8. For the foregoing reasons impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner (L) is set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Rev) Multan, the notified officer who shall accept the petitioner's entitlement for 2 Biggas arid 17 Biswas as duly verified and proceed to calculate its value in terms of P. I. Units and then determine whether 7 Kanals of land allotted/confirmed to the petitioner in 1951 is within his entitlement or not. He shall decide the matter within one month from the receipt of this order.
9. Before concluding, I would like to observe that on the facts found) by the learned Settlement Commissioner, petitioner cannot be said to be:6 responsible for wrong verification of somebody else's entitlement on his claim nor can he be said to have acted dishonestly or fraudulently in obtaining the allotment in question. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that he obtained the allotment of only 7 Kanals as against the claim verified (though erroneously) for 10 Biggas and 12 Biswa s. Error in verification appears to be the result of similarity of names and parentage of the petitioner and the aforesaid Alam Din.
10. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.