SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 29-1-1980 of the Lahore High Court declaring the orders of the Settlement Authorities to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect.
2. The petitioners are displaced persons from District Ambala (India). Their claim was verified for 2581 Produce Index Units. They were allotted land in village Thakar Singhwala of Tehsil Dipalpur, District Sahiwal. The allotment was confirmed on 20-9-1956. A part of their allotment fell in Squares Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 33. The land falling in Square No.33 was later withdrawn on the ground that it did not form part of their temporary allotment. Subsequently, by an order dated 16-7-1958, the land falling in Squares Nos.27, 28 and 29 was also withdrawn by the Deputy Rehabilitation/ Commissioner on the ground that it was in excess of their entitlement. On 9-7-1958 the said land was allotted to the respondent against his verified claim. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Rehabilitation /Settlement Commissioner. It was accepted on 27-9-1.965 and the Additional Rehabilitation/ Settlement Commissioner gave a direction that the petitioners be allowed to retain their allotment to the extent of their re-verified entitlement. It appears that according to the re-verified claim the land earlier allotted to them was well within their entitlement.
3. In pursuance of the order of the Additional Rehabilitation/ Settlement Commissioner the Chairman of the local Allotment Committee on 15-6-1966 cancelled the allotment of the respondent and restored the land to the petitioners."
4. Before the Chairman of the Allotment Committee cancelled his allotment, the respondent preferred a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Additional Rehabilitation /Settlement Commissioner. While his revision petition was pending the Chairman cancelled his allotment as stated above. By an order dated 22-9-1967 the Settlement Commissioner dismissed his revision petition with the observations that the order of the Additional Rehabilitation/ Settlement Commissioner did not affect his rights and that in any event it was open to him to file an appeal against the order dated 15-6-1966 of the Chairman of the Allotment Committee.
5. After the dismissal of his revision petition by the Settlement Commissioner the respondent waited for six months and then filed an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner from the order of the Chairman, Allotment Committee. Apart from other pleas the petitioners resisted the appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner holding that the appeal of the respondent should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
6. The respondent challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. By the order impugned in this petition the High Court restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, holding inter-alia that the Settlement Commissioner was in error when he set aside the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in condoning the delay, that as the order of the Chairman of the Allotment Committee was passed in the absence of and without hearing the respondent, there was no question of the appeal being barred by time, that the Settlement Commissioner had clearly held that the order of 27-q-1965 of the Additional Rehabilitation Settlement Commissioner was not to affect the rights of the respondent, that as the order of allotment dated 9-7-1958 in favour of the respondent was not challenged, it had become final and that equity favoured the respondent as he was an allottee of merely 18 Acres whereas the petitioners had obtained allotment of two squares of land. '
7.It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Settlement Commissioner was fully competent to reverse the decision of the Deputy, Settlement Commissioner with regard to condonation of delay and that he had done so for a sufficiently good reason, which is, that despite his direction to him the respondent had waited for six months before filing the appeal from the order of the Chairman, Local Allotment Committee before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the circumstances it was not open to the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner. Apart from that, it is argued. It was essentially a case of restoration of the land which had been erroneously taken away from the petitioners under the incorrect impression that their allotment had exceeded their entitlement. Further, it was not necessary for the petitioners to challenge the order of allotment made in favour of the respondent for it was subject to the decision in the revision petition that they had preferred before the Additional Rehabilitation /Settlement Commissioner. It is also stated that the High Court was not right in observing that the respondent had obtained an allotment of only 18 Acres and for that reason the equity was in his favour.
8. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners need consideration. We would accordingly grant them leave to appeal. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be made ready on the present record with permission to the parties to place additional documents on the record that they consider necessary.