After verification of Claim No. 10090 of the petitioner's father Mehdi Khan land measuring 131 Kanals 12 marlas was proposed for allotment in his favour at RL II No.1182 of Village Waran, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura on 24-9-1966. It was not confirmed in due course. R.L. II was put up before the Authorities on 15-11-1971 wherein it is recorded that the claimant is present. He accepts the proposed allotment. There is nobody to object to it. Therefore, Khasras Nos. 11/2, 13, 14 of Square No.174, Khasras Nos.14, 17 of Square No.175, Khasras Nos.l, 2, 3, 4, 22 of Square No.195, Khasra No.3/3 of Square No.210, Khasras Nos.6/1-2, 13/2, 18 of Square No.211, Khasra No.123/2 of Square No.244 and Khasra No.12/1 of Square No.232, which should have been followed by the word "are hereby confirmed", are followed by "that it has come to notice at this stage that there were claimants in the estate whose units were pending, and therefore, a list be prepared". The matter was adjourned.
On 30-1-1973 it was recorded that in spite of notice the claimant had not appeared and it was reported that he was not a resident of the village, therefore, the Khata is cancelled. It is submitted in the petition that the report was collusive. The order is void altogether. Notwithstanding this, the claimant was taken as an allottee of the area and in consolidation proceedings he was given the land. When he came to know of the aforesaid order, he filed a revision petition, but the same was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 14-3-1974. He died two years later. The petitioner who is working in a far-off district as a labourer, assuming that the land had been allotted to his father and also been consolidated, did not come to know of the aforesaid order of the cancellation of the allotment or rejection of the revision petition. As soon as he came to know thereof, he filed this writ petition.
2. The Officer appearing for respondents Nos.l and 2 has submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and secondly the allotment having never been confirmed and the claim of the petitioner's father returned to the Central Record Office, he had no right to the allotment of the land. Lastly, that after the repeal of all Settlement laws vide Act XIV of 1975, the Authorities have no jurisdiction to make any allotment to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the privately impleaded respondents has submitted that they are in possession of the area measuring about five acres and being in possession are entitled to the transfer of the same under the latest scheme.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. In lieu of the verified claim of the claimant he was proposed land on 24-9-1966. According to the relevant scheme the proposal should have been taken up and confirmed after 15 days. Five years were allowed to go by the Authorities to take up the Khata. A perusal of the order dated 15-11-1971 shows that the Officer intended to confirm the allotment when he said that the claimant is present, he accepted the proposal. There is nobody to object to it. But for some reasons he adjourned the matter to get a list of all the claimants. This was never done and two years later his successor cancelled the proposal on the ground that the claimant was absent in spite of notice. Well, even if the claimant was absent, his claim was A there. Proposal was in his favour and that was to be confirmed. There was no justification to cancel the allotment because nobody was saying that the proposal should not be confirmed. According to the judgment reported as Inayat Bibi v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1978 Lah. 252) the proposal should have been confirmed after 15 days and would be deemed to be so. ' It was so taken by the Authorities in consolidation proceedings and land was given in lieu thereof. Cancellation of proposed allotment when nobody was objecting and claim was there, was not justified. The submission of the Officer that thereafter the claim was sent back to Central Record Office, Lahore, only means that the Authorities concerned can get that back. The delay is not fatal as nobody has been done as the Officer says it might be, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in that event, the petitioner would not claim the area allotted if that has been allotted to other claimants but the petitioner should be allotted some other evacuee area vesting in the Government to the extent of the verified claim of the petitioner's father. This is a very reasonable submission to make. It is, therefore, directed that' if the area proposed in favour of the petitioner's father B has been confirmed to somebody else, the petitioner shall be allotted land from some other area available in the district for disposal. Subject to this, the impugned orders dated 30-1-1973 and 14-3-1974 being without lawful authority and of no legal effect are set aside. As the matter has been hanging fire for more than two decades, all necessary actions should be taken within the next four months. The petition is thus allowed but, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
M . Y . H . / M-734 / LPetition allowed