' This order will dispose of W.P.No,859/R-75 and W . P . No,435/R-76 as these concern the same disputed land.
2. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in the first petition, Muhammad alias Manda son of Walla, settled in Chak No,287/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. He was made temporary allotment of land in 1951. He filed his claim form for the land abandoned in India which was verified in due course of time. He was initially allotted land at RL-II No,36 in Chak No,287/EB Tehsil Pakpattan District Sahiwal on 12-2-1956. On the general order of the then Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mr.I.U.Khan, dated 11-11-1956 fresh allotments were made in the Chak and the petitioners were allotted on 13-2-1957 land comprising in kills No,7, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 24 of square No,22/23, kills No,5, 6 and 15/min of square No,3/4, and kills No,13/1 of square No,11/12. Respondents No,1 & 2 filed an appeal saying that they had been confirmed some Banjar Qadeem and Chair Mumkin land in square No,22/23 earlier which should have been given to them. The appeal was allowed and it was directed that the claim of the appellants should be satisfied from the area previously confirmed to them. This is vide order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Montgomery dated 19-10-1957.
The petitioners filed a revision petition which was rejected by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 10-2-1958. They along with others filed WP.No,2458/R-63 which was accepted on 4-3-1974. In pursuance of this order, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restored the allotment of the petitioners made on 13-2-1957 vide his own order dated 8-6-1974. This was challenged by the respondents by means of a revision petition which was dismissed on the ground that after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 since 1-7-1974, the revision was not competent. This is vide order of ADC (G)/Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 29-3-1975. On 15- 7-1975, at RL-II No,173/194/148 of the respondents the learned AC/DSC(L) ordered that in pursuance of the order of the D.R.C.(L) dated 19-10-1957 and A.R.C. (L) dated 10-2-1958, killa Nos.7,14,15,16,17 and 24 of square No,22/23 measuring 38 kanals 1 marla be confirmed in their favour. This is challenged by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 15-7-1975 has been passed relying on the order of the D.R.C. (L) dated 19-10-1957 and of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 10-2-1958 but all these orders stood set aside in view of the order in favour of the petitioners on their writ petition No,2458/R-63. It is submitted that the impugned order is, therefore, without basis. It is secondly contended that the respondents left no land behind as would appear from the report of the Central Record Office dated 4-8-1975 (Annex 'G') and, therefore, they had no right to the allotment of the land in preference to the petitioners who had left land behind and the same had been verified in their favour. It is thirdly contended that the claim of the respondents to allotment is based on the ground that their land in India had gone under a river, but in lieu thereof they had already got land prior to the independence in Pakistan in Chak No,261/EB Tehsil Burewala.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No,1 and 2 who have themselves filed the second W.P.
No,435/R-76 challenging the orders of the DSC(L) dated 8-6-1974 by which the allotment in favour of the petitioners was restored and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 29-3-1975 by which their revision against the said order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, has supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Taking the second petition filed, that is to say WP No,435/R-1976, it may be noticed that this challenges the order of the DSC(L) dated 8-6-1974 and of the Settlement Commissioner dated 29-3-1975. The petition itself was filed on 27-3-1986. From the operative order of the CSC(L) dated 8-6-1974, the petition suffers from laches for about two years and from the order of the Settlement Commissioner by a year. No explanation has been offered for this inordinate delay. The impugned order dated 8-6-1974 has restored the allotment in favour of the petitioners in the first petition made on 13-2-1957. That was quite right. The aforesaid petitioners were the temporary allottees of the estate and having been confirmed the land on 13-2-1957, they should not have been disturbed.
If the DSC has restored their allotment vide order dated 8-6-1974, he has just done the right thing to undo the wrong. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondents against the order, dated 8- 6-1974 is without merit and without force having been filed after an inordinate delay. The same is dismissed.
6. As regards the first petition it is to be noticed that the allotment was restored in favour of the petitioners by the DSC on 8-6-1974. On 15-7-1975 the DSC had no right to resurrect the dead orders dated 19-10-1957 and 10-2-1958 ignoring the order holding the field. In this view of the matter, the impugned order in the first petition of the DSC dated 15-7-1975 is therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is accepted. However, in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.