This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 is directed against the order passed in review by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, dated 8th February 1963, and order of the Settlement Commissioner dismissing the petition in default on 28th August 1964.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had settled in Khanpui, Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan after Partition of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. He submitted his claim which was verified. He was confirmed the land in 1962. On 4th September 1962, the D. R. C.
Agreed with the report submitted by the lower staff and directed the cancellation of some area of the petitioner. Meanwhile Usman died leaving the petitioner (his son) and a widow as heirs.
Actually the order of cancellation was passed on 14th September 1962, which was appealed against and the Additional Rehabilitation Commis--sioner vide his order dated 9th November 1962, permitted the purchase of excess area in accordance with Memorandum No. 2195--62/3796-R(L) dated 18th May 1962. Sadil respondent filed a review petition and the Additional Settlement Commissioner reduced the area and allowed the petitioner to purchase 222 produce index units.
The petitioner went in revision but it was dismissed in default. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent raised preliminary objection, namely, that the petition suffers from laches since the last order was passed in 1963 whereas the petition was filed in 1966. He has not availed the alternate legal remedy as his prevision petition was dismissed in default on 28th August 1964. Lastly he contended that the land has been sold and the vendees have not been made party in the petition and thus in their absence the writ petition cannot continue. During the pendency of writ petition Sadil has died and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. It was submitted that the petitioner was serving in the Army and as such he could not give attention to the litigation, the revision was dismissed in default because his mother, who had filed the same, had also died and it was on his release from the Army that he started pursuing the case. The delay is, therefore, explained.
4. This petition can only succeed to a limited extent and not on merits. Therefore, it is not necessary to advert to the preliminary objections, for, the only point which he successfully raised before tile Court is that if the petitioner cannot succeed on merits and the power of review was exercised in accordance with law by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner then the petitioner has a right of exercising iris choice by virtue of Para. 14, Chapter I, Part II of the West Pakistan rehabilitation Settlement Scheme a portion of which is reproduced as under:- " The competent Rehabilitation Authority will allot to each refugee, whose claim is admitted, land keeping in view the principle that no refugee is to be displaced against his will from land regularly allotted to him by a competent Rehabilitation Authority."
I think there is some force in the argument raised. Though the petitioner cannot succeed in getting the land but the Settlement Authorities can take) away the excess Land according to the petitioner's choice, for, if he has A made any improvement on the land, he cannot be deprived of it.
With this observation the writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.