ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4-12-1973, whereby the constitutional petition of the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts are that Allah Din, father of the appellants, was a claimant displaced person and on migration to Pakistan settled in Chak No. 205/E.B., Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, where he was allotted land temporarily comprising Killa Nos. 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Square No. 21/22. In lieu of the properties left by Allah Din in India, he filed claim form No. 6263 and on this form land measuring 26 Kanals 10 Marlas was verified in his name on 17-8-1952. He had also left some mortgagee land but the same was not verified and instead of filing an objection petition he filed y Jadid claim form No. 8525. The same was also verified by the Central Record Office on 28-9-1952 to the extent of 36 Kanals 8 Marlas. Allah Din died in 1953 and he was succeeded by the appellants as temporary allottees. The appellants' father initially filed claim forms for Lahore District but as he was temporary allottee of Chak No. 205/E.B. The same were transferred to Chak No. 205/E.B., Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal in 1953. Land measuring 64 Kanals, comprised in Killa Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 18 of Square No. 21/22, Kills Nos. 1 and 10/1 of Square No. 11 and Killa Nos. 5 and 6 of Square No. 12 was thus transferred to the appellants on 27-7-1954 and necessary entry in R.L. II was carried out.
Somewhere in November, 1956 complaints were received that the allotments in these Chaks had been made contrary to the provisions of the Scheme and thus the allotments made in the name of the appellants were cancelled on 11-11-1956 and in the light of the guidelines contained in the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 11-11-1956, fresh allotment was made to the appellants on 24-4-1957 and during these proceedings the claim form No. 8525 was considered as an Uzardari and necessary entry was made in the R.L. II. The order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 11-11-1956, was challenged in the High Court through a number of writ petitions as a result of which the said order was set aside but this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3/1 of 1959 set aside the order of the High Court and thus the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 11-11-1956, was restored.
3. In spite of the restoration of the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 11-11-1956, respondent No. 3 took up the case of the appellants and on 28-9-1963 re-confirmed the orders made in favour of the appellants, dated 24-4-1957. In the meantime, respondents 4 and 5, whose form was sent to this district, filed appeal against the order, dated 28-9-1963 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sahiwal, which was accepted on 5-3-1965 and the land confirmed in the name of the appellants was cancelled. The revision petition of the appellants before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) was dismissed on 4-6-1965 and their constitutional petition also met the same fate on 4th December, 1973.
4. Leave in this case was granted to consider whether the confirmation of the land in the name of the appellants as back as 24-4-1957 having not been challenged by any person had become final and its subsequent re-confirmation and proceedings thereafter was void and ineffective on the rights of the appellants and whether the Jadid claim bearing No. 8525 was in fact properly transferred to Chak No. 205/E. B .
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Tribunals and the High Court. The grounds taken in the appeal and urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents and rightly too because by virtue of the order of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3/1 of 1959 decided on 7-6-1962 the order of allotment made in favour of the appellants on 24-4-1957 was restored. It., therefore, did not require any re-confirmation and all subsequent proceedings are illegal and void.
The perusal of R.L. II in respect of Chak No. 205/E.B. Clearly shows that the Jadid form of the appellants was transferred to Pakpattan by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Landsi who was a competent authority. Even otherwise, the appellants ad preferential right for the transfer of the land in dispute firstly because they were sitting allottees in the district and secondly because he land in question was proposed for allotment in their name on 27-6-1954 whereas the claim form of the respondents was only received in this state on 27-6-1954.
6 In the result this appeal is accepted, the orders of the Tribunalsthat of the High Court are set aside with no order as to costs.