1. QADEERUDDIN ABMAD, J.-The petitioners are sons, daughters, widow and grandson of Abdul Latif Khan of Patiala State who did not migrate to Pakistan. His property was, nevertheless, declared to be evacuee property in India. The petitioners migrated to Pakistan and filed claims as reversioners of Abdul Latif Khan with respect to the property which Abdul Latif Khan owned. Their claim was considered because in the earlier stages of Rehabilitation operations a provision was made for those descendants of Indian Muslims who migrated to Pakistan although their ancestors who were owners of property did not migrate. That provision was contained in paragraph 47 of the Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioners were accordingly considered to be eligible for allotment of land and lands situated in several villages were allotted to them on various dates from 1952 to 1955.
2. Paragraph 47 was deleted in 1959 with the result that the allotments made under it were be cancelled and the lands which became available in consequence of the cancellation were to be utilized to meet the claims of other persons entitled to it. It was .; however, considered proper that some relief should be granted to such allottees. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accordingly, issued Memorandum No. 8308-59/392-R (P) dated the 25th January 1960, giving an option to such allottees to purchase the land which was in their possession but the area of land which could be purchased by them was not to be more than a subsisting holding, for which a scale was prescribed. Subsequently this concession was curtailed by making a provision vide Memorandum No. 1578-61/1099-R (5) dated the 8th June 1961. The curtailment was effected by restricting the option to that land which was under self-cultivation of the allottees.
3. The petitioners applied to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to convey the exercise of their option to purchase land but it was found that they were not cultivating it. Their application was, therefore, dismissed. They went in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner who rejected it. Then they went in revision which was also dismissed on the 26th November 1962, with the observation that they were not in self-cultivating possession of the land at the time at which orders affording opportunity to self-cultivating allottees to purchase the land were issued. The Settlement Commissioner, therefore, held that the land which was allotted to them was liable to be resumed. The petitioners preferred a second revision petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who examined the Revenue Record pertaining to tile case of the appellants, discussed the effect of paragraph 47 of the scheme read with Memorandums of January 1960 and June 1961 and came to the conclusion that the condition to purchase the land was restricted to those areas which were in self-cultivating possession of such allottees.
4. The petitioners' stand before the Chief Settlement Com--missioner was that even if they were not in self-cultivating possession of land in January 1960, when the first Memorandum was issued, they were in such possession when the second Memo--randum was issued in June 1961; therefore, subject to the restrictions contained in the second Memorandum their possession should be recognised. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has dealt with this argument in his order of the 9th October 1963, as follows: "In the subsequent memorandum No. 1578-61/1099-R (P) dated 8-6-1961, which is in continuation of the above memo--randum the concession to purchase the land was restricted to the purchase of only that portion of land which was being self cultivated by the allottee concerned and was not to cover the entire land included in the allotment. The subsequent memo--randum does not in any way supersede the orders contained in the earlier memorandum but on the other hand amplifies the terms and conditions laid down in that memorandum. The claim of the displaced persons who still enjoy possession of their properties in India for the purchase of land are, therefore, to be scrutinised in the light of the memorandum No. 8308-59/ 392-R (P) dated 25-1-1960, read with memorandum dated 8-6-1961."
5. The above observations have a historical value inasmuch as they explain the sequence in which and the purpose for which the two memorandums were issued. The additional value of the above observation is that the Department has interpreted them to apply them in that sense to all cases of the same nature.
6. The petitioners moved the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but their petitions were dismissed. They preferred Letters Patent Appeals also which were dismissed on the 15th February 1968. They have applied to this Court for leave to appeal against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench.
7. Copies of the memorandums are attached to Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 125 of 1968 as Annexures 'A' and 'B'. There is a statement in the second memorandum which is Annexure'B' under the heading `Reference' as follows: "In continuation of this office Memorandum No. 8308-59/ 392-R (P) dated the 25th January 1960."
8. The above statement leaves no doubt that the second memorandum is not independent of the previous one. But counsel for the petitioners relied on the word `is' which appears in the first paragraph of the second memorandum, in the following context: "This concession will be applicable only in respect of such portion of the land as is being self- cultivated by the allottee concerned and will not extend to the entire land included in the allotment."
9. Counsel said that the word 'is' must necessarily be understood to mean that the allottee who was in self-cultivating possession on the 8th June 1961, which is the date of the Notification, was entitled to the concession. This interpretation cannot be accepted as correct because it will amount to excluding those allottees who were in such possession from the 25th January 1960. The word 'is' in the above context is descriptive and not prescriptive.
10. We see no reason to disagree from the view of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court. Both the petitions are dismissed.