' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.-- This is an Inter-Court Appeal filed by Ghulam Hussain and others, appellants Nos. 1 to 3, against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 7-10-1985 dismissing the appellants' writ petition (W.P. No.155-R of 1985).
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mst. Nisar Bano, daughter of Mirza Nisar Ali, had a verifed claim for 15840 PIU. Against this claim, she was confirmed 1030 PIU in Mauza Bhikki, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, on 1-6-1966 against RL II No. 26 in the Revenue Records. Ghulam Hussain and others, the present appellants Nos, 1 and 2, became her tenants in 1966 and it is submitted that they are still in physical possession of the said land in Mauza Bhikki, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura.
3. On 2-2-1974 and 30-4-1974, mukhbari applications were filed against the above-mentioned allotments by Fazal Din, Mst. Bashir Begum, Shah Din etc., which were decided as pending cases after the enforcement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, XIV of 1975, by the Settlement Commissioner (lands) (with powers of CSC), Lahore, on 28-5-1978 and the land allotted and confirmed in the name of Mst. Nisar Bano was cancelled from her name including that in Mauza Bhikki, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. It may be mentioned here that the Settlement Commissioner did not give any right to the informers to get allotment of the said land. It is alleged that Mst. Nisar Bano did not apply for the purchase of land so cancelled, as excess land.
4. Meanwhile on 23-4-1983, Ghulam Hussain and others, the present appellants, filed an application for purchase of the land resumed from Mst. Nisar Bano on the basis of the right provided to them by the first proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Real) Act, 1975. A report was sought by the Board of Revenue from the District Authorities in this respect, which was submitted on 9-10-1983 in favour of the 'present appellants.
5. Whilst the above proceedings were taking place, Syed Shahida All and Syed Ijtaba Ali, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, were claiming since 1961 revised entitlement certificate with regard to excess area cancelled from their allotments, pursuant to Martial Law Regulations which stood enforced in1961, in respect of which a Revised Entitlement Certificate was issued in their favour for 1317 units on 14-2-1975. The said respondents had been claiming allotment of land in lieu of the Revised Entitlement Certificate, as they had been made to lose their entitlement on account of the miscalculation made by the Central Record Office and the local authorities. Finding no redress from the Settlement Department, the said respondents filed writ petition (W.P. No. 1384-R 75) on 16- 12-1975 praying that the case be treated as a pending case and the Settlement Department be ordered to adjust the units against the lands previously allotted and confirmed to them. On 19-3- 1979, the said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this High Court, who held that as the said respondents had been pursuing their remedies all through the years, they were entitled as a pending case to the satisfaction of their claim to the extent of 1317 Units in Kot Pindidas estate (Tehsil Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura) or in any other estate in the Sheikhupura District forming part of the compensation pool vested in the Central Government, for which the respondents were directed to approach the relevant authorities. Pursuant to this order, Syed Shahida All and Syed Ijtaba Ali, respondents Nos.3 and 4, on 26-5-1985 were allotted land of Mst. Nisar Bano which had been resumed in Mauza Bhikki.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Ghulam Hussain and others, the present appellants, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 155-R) of 1985 praying for a declaration that the said order be set aside and that the Settlement Department be directed to decide the application for purchase filed by the appellants, which was still pending before them. The said writ petition however, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 7-10-1985. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present inter-court appeal has been filed, which is now before us for disposal.
7. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the Entitlement Certificate issued in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, having been issued on 14-2-1975 and the said respondents having filed their writ petition (W.P.No. 1384-R of 1975 (on 16-12-1975) on all of which actions were taken much after 1-7-1974, when the Settlement Laws were repealed, no vested rights accrued in favour of the said respondents, as on the effective date i.e. 1-7-1974 Mst. Nisar Bano's lands in Mauza Bahikki being available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the settlement laws, had stood transferred to the Provincial Government and was available for disposal under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. Since the present appellants had filed their applications for purchase of the said land on 23-4-1983, under the first proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act, the said land could not have been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as it was now available for disposal only under the said proviso. It is further submitted that after the settlemtn laws were repealed, the compensation pool also disappeared and the said property could not be treated as having reverted to the compensation pool for allotment in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4. In this connection it is submitted that the property must be treated as property available for disposal under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975.
8. On behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4 it is submitted that the said respondents eversince 1961 were trying to secure their Revised Entitlement Certificate, in view of the mistake made by the Central Record Office and the local authorities in calculating the areas to be taken back under the Martial Law Regulations of 1961, and since they were not able to get the said certificate till 14-2-1975 or lands in lieu thereof till 16-12-1975, they were constrained to file a writ in the High Court with a prayer that their case be treated as a pending case, which was allowed and the Settlement Department was directed to satisfy the claim of the appellants up to the extent of 1317 units in Kot Pindi Das estate or in any other estate in the Sheikhupura district, which was consequently done by the Settlement Department on 26-5-1985. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that as the appellants' case for allotment was pending on 1-7-1974 and under section 2 (3) of Act XIV of 1975 had to be disposed of by the notified officer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, which was the law to which the proceedings related, section 3 did not come into the picture, till the pending proceedings stood finalized. It is thus urged that the appellants had no case for transfer.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to this case. It is clear that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had an Entitlement Certificate for 5038 PIUs. In 1961, after the enforcement of Martial Law Regulations Nos. 84 and 89, the claim of the said respondents was reduced by 2803 units and land in excess to the extent of these units was surrendered by the respondents. It was the case of the respondents that wrong calculations had been made by the Central Record Office and the local authorities in reducing their claim to the extent of 2803 units. It was not until 14-2-1975 that a Revised Entitlement Certificate was issued in their favour for 1317 units. When the, respondents attempted to secure allotment in lieu of the said units, they met with no response. Ultimately, the said respondents filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 1384-R of 1975) in the High Court on 16-12-1975, with a prayer that their case be treated as a pending case and that the respondents be directed to adjust the said units against the land previously allotted and confirmed to them. On 19-3-1979, a learned Single Judge of this Court accepted the writ petition, holding that the respondents who had been persuing their remedies for all these years were entitled as a pending case to the satisfaction of their claim to the extent of 1317 PIUs in Kot Pindi Das estate or in any other estate in the Sheikhupura District from part of the compensation pool vested in the Central Government, for which the respondents could approach the relevant authorities. In view of this order, it cannot be denied that the case of the said respondents was pending on 1-7-1974 and dealt with under Section 2 (3) of Act XIV of 1975 in accordance with the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, applicable to such matters. However, when the matter was so dealt with under the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, the lands of Mst. Nisar Bano of Mauza Bhikki were allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on 26-5- 1985 against their claims on RL II No.
71. On this date, therefore, the disputed land was not available for disposal under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975, which the appellants could have claimed under the first proviso to clause (b) of subsection (1) of the said section. The view of the law as given by the learned Single Judge, with which we are in complete agreement, is entirely correct and we see no reason to differ from the same. In this view of the matter, the appellants are not entitled to the lands in Mauza Bhikki which were resumed from Mst. Nisar Bano.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.