' NAIMUDDIN, J.--This appeal by special leave arises in the following circumstances:
1. Nawab Khan deceased the father of the appellants was a temporary allottee of Chak No, 132/GB, Tehsil and District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). His unsatisfied claim was transferred at his own request to Thal but it was retransferred to the Chak by the order dated 24th August, 1957, of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur. It was further ordered by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that the appellants were entitled to get the area in the same Chak 132/GB if there was any surplus area. On 29th August, 1960 the Additional Settlement Commissioner/ Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) proposed the land in dispute comprised in Killa Nos. 24/2, 25, 20/2 and 15 at Khata RL-II No, 646, in their names. According to the appellants the land was confirmed in their favour on 29th September, 1960, but the order admittedly does not bear the signature of the confirming officer. The appellants however, continued in cultivating possession of the land. It appears that on the 4th August, 1966, the same land was proposed in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and later on confirmed on 19th August, 1966.
2. The appellants filed an appeal and later on a revision application before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur and the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, respectively but failed.
3. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the appeal and the revision application appellants filed a Constitutional petition, being Writ Petition No,777-R of 1967 which too was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. It was observed that Nawab Khan had taken away his claim to Thal area and obtained land at that place and whatever rights he had for securing allotment were given up by him when he took away his claim there. It appears that the observation that Nawab Khan had obtained land at Thal is based on misunderstanding of the facts as it does not appear from the record that he had obtained any land at that place. The High Court also observed that it was not established on the record before it as to when did the appellants bring their claim back to the village.
4. Now, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that the allotment in favour of the appellants was not confirmed.
5. It is true that the allotment was not confirmed in the sense that the order was not signed by the officer but it was nonetheless made and it is equally true that the proposal was never withdrawn and continued to stand in favour of the appellants ever since 29th August, 1960. It has not so far been cancelled from their Khata and as such the land could not have been proposed once again in the names of the respondents without cancelling the same from their names after notice to them. As regards the observation of the High Court that there was nothing on record to show that the claim of the appellants was brought back to the Chak by 29th August, 1960, it may be observed that it is in the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner that a new Khata was entered at 646 on verified `Fard Haqiat' and the old area was entered but according to him was not confirmed.
6. The question as to the importance of a proposal for allotment under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme was considered by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Mst. Inayat Bibi etc. v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1978 Lahore 252, qua the memorandum of the Settlement Commissioner dated 25th June, 1973, whereby, inter alia he had directed that the proposals ahead% made and not yet confirmed to stand cancelled, was held to be ultra vires the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner and that the memorandum in question was of no legal effect and a direction was given that the proposal already existing in favour of the appellants in that case should be considered as still subsisting and be disposed of in accordance with law.
6. This view of the High Court was confirmed by this Court in Wali Muhammad v. Settlement Commissioner Sargodha Division 1984 SCMR 1574.
After examining the relevant rule 64 of the Scheme it was observed therein at page 1577 of the report as follows: "The contention, thus, is that a mere proposal to allot land does not confer any right and, consequently, respondent No, 2 could not have any preference only on the ground that the proposal to allot the land was made in his favour earlier than it was made in favour of the appellant. We are afraid we cannot agree."
7. In view of the above decisions we allow this appeal and consequently grant the prayer contained in the writ petition. The appellants shall also have the cost of the appeal.