' This writ petition calls in question the validity of order dated 27-10-1976 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) Sheikhupura, whereby he cancelled entitlement of the petitioners to the extent of 231 P.I. Us. On a 'Mukhbari' application filed by Fayyaz Ali Khan and three others.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that Barkat Ali, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had a verified claim to the extent of 1049 P.I. Us. He obtained allotment in lieu of his claim in villages Hiran Minar and Chak No. 179/R.B. Of District Sheikhupura to the extent of 1008 P.I.Us. Barkat All died and mutation of inheritance No.40 was sanctioned on 25-7-1954 in favour of the petitioners. Pursuant to 'Mukhbari' application filed by Babu and others, on 14-2-1974 the entire claim of Barkat All deceased and land allotted in lieu thereof were verified. On 4-4-1974 it was found that he got allotted land measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas, in excess of his entitlement, the same was consequently cancelled.
' On another 'Mukhbari' application moved by Fayyaz All and others, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) vide impugned order, cancelled allotment of land equivalent to 231 P.I.Us.
' Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners by means of this petition invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mst. Ulfat Bibi petitioner No.1 was not impleaded, party to the 'Mukhbari' application although mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned in her favour on 25-7-1954 and her name reflected in the relevant revenue record since then. It was further contended that once on 4-4-1974 the entitlement of the petitioner was scrutinised by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, no proceedings could have been initiated on another 'Mukhbari' application. It was further submitted that no excess land to the entitlement of the petitioners was allotted to them. The calculations made by respondent No.5 are wrong. It was lastly contended that petitioners' predecessor utilised his claim only to the extent of 1008 P.I.Us. And there was still balance of 41 P.I.Us.
To his credit. The impugned order passed behind the back of the petitioner No.1 being void is not tenable under the law.
4. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to oppose this petition.
5. Admittedly petitioner No. 1 was not associated as one of the respondents in the 'Mukhbari' application. The order cancelling allotment of land to the extent of her share is not sustainable as she was condemned unheard. The entitlement of the petitioners had been scrutinised on 4-4-1974 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, fresh proceedings launched on another 'Mukhbari' application were hardly called for in the matter.
In any case it appears to be a case of miscalculation of P.I.Us. Utilised for allotment of the land in dispute.
' At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are prepared to get re- calculated their entitlement and re-verified the allotment of the land in dispute and in case it is found that the petitioners are holding some land in excess of their entitlement which they do not concede otherwise, they are prepared to purchase the same in accordance with the latest policy of the Settlement Department.
' In this view of the matter this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27-10-1976 is declared to be of no legal effect. The Notified Officer shall re-calculate the entitlement of the petitioners and re-verify the allotment of the land made in lieu thereof. In case it is found that the petitioners are holding land in excess of their entitlement the same may be offered to them for sale in accordance with the latest policy of the Settlement Department.
4. As no one has appeared to contest this petition there shall be no order as to costs.