SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This-petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 3-2-1985 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of competency.
2.A.I Hussain, respondent No. 4, a claimant from Jammu and Kashmir, obtained allotments of agriculture land equivalent of 7100 produce index units in a number of villages. Later he sold the land to different persons. The petitioner who had an unsatisfied claim filed a Mukhbari application alleging that the allotments secured by respondent No.4 were bogus and fraudulent. On 1-11-1965 the Deputy Commissioner Gujranwala who also exercised the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act accepted the application and by an ex parte order directed the cancellation of all the allotments.
Subsequently out of the cancelled allotments land equivalent to 950 produce index units was given to the petitioner.
3. Muhammad Sadiq and six others who had purchased part of the land from respondent No.4 challenged the order of cancellation in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. Their appeal was dismissed on the ground of competency. Subsequently, one Abdul Hameed, another purchaser of land from A.I Hussain filed a miscellaneous application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. During the course of proceedings on this application, the Additional Settlement Commissioner got the claim of A.I Hussain re-examined from the Central Record Office.
He found that A.I Hussain was entitled to only 3700 units. Giving him the benefit of some Beshi he, by his order dated 20-3-1967, allowed him to retain land equivalent to 3733 produce index units.
The allotment so restored included the land which had been given to the petitioner.
4.The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner led to the filing of two settlement revisions and one writ petition in the High Court. The settlement revisions which were later converted into writ petitions were filed by the petitioner and Sh.Abdul Hameed and one other. The writ petition was preferred by A.I Hussain and one Nisar Ahmad Salim. By an order dated 23-5-1968 the High Court accepted the writ petition filed by A.I Hussain and Nisar Ahmad Salim, set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case back to him for a fresh decision. .5. After the remand the Additional Settlement Commissioner re-examined the case and by an order dated 27-12-1968 reiterated his earlier order of 20-3-1967. This order was again challenged by Nisar Ahmad Salim and two others in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. By ah order dated 5-11- 1971 the High Court accepted the writ petition and once again directed the Additional Settlement Commissioner to record a fresh decision. Even after this second remand the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-7-1978.-maintained his earlier order.
6. While the matter was shuttling between the High Court and the Additional Settlement Commissioner the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and Sh. Abdul Hameed remained pending.
Finally by an order dated 15-4-1975 the High Court dismissed their petitions. The petitioner moved this Court for leave to appeal but it was denied to him mainly on the ground that the order which he was challenging had already been quashed in a different case.
7. The order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner consequent upon the third remand by the High Court gave rise to three writ petitions. One was filed by Nisar Ahmad Salim and some others, the second by -Mst. Shamim Akhtar and the third by the petitioner. A learned Single Judge in the High Court admitted the petition filed by Nisar Ahmad Salim and Mst. Shamim Akhtar to regular -hearing but dismissed the one filed by the petitioner in the preliminary hearing on the ground that his petition to leave against the dismissal of his earlier writ petition had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
8. It is difficult to support the order of the learned Single Judge. It is to be noticed that both Nisar Ahmad Salim and Mst. Shamim Akhtar have in their writ petitions cited the petitioner as party. Thus, even the other parties aggrieved by the order now impugned conceded that the petitioner had an interest in the matter. The petitioner's petition for leave was dismissed mainly on the ground that the order challenged by him already stood quashed. Besides, as a result of the proceedings initiated by him he was allotted land out of the cancelled allotment of A.I Hussain. He had an interest in protecting his allotment. In the circumstances, his writ petition could not be dismissed just for the reason that he was not granted have to appeal by this Court from the order dismissing his earlier writ petition.
9. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition filed by the petitioner should be heard on merits along with the other two writ petitions filed by Nisar Ahmad Salim and Mst. Shamim Akhtar: There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.