' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Makhna's (since deceased and represented by his heirs respondents No,1 to 5) claim for the abandoned land in the State of Bikanair was verified under Schedule V to the Registration of Claims ' (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 for 717 produce-index-units (PIUs). In lieu thereof, he was confirmed land measuring 15-1/2 acres in village Chhohan, Tehsil Hasanpur, District Bahawalpur in the year 1960. Petitioners alongwith others filed .a Mukhbari application saying that on receipt of Jamabandis from India, the Central Record Office has issued fresh Fardei Haqiat verifying the claim for 392 PI Units, therefore, land for the excess units confirmed to the respondents be cancelled. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner observed that the allotment was confirmed in the year 1960 according to the verification under Schedule V and the allottees were in continuous possession of the allotted area. Referring to the subsequent Fardei Haqiat issued by the Central Record Officer, the learned office referred to a decision of the Lahore High Court wherein it was decided that the allotments made according to the first verification should stand. He also referred to the Circular letter No,1006-63/2071-RL, dated 12-4-1963 wherein it was laid down that earlier verification should stand and subsequent be ignored. Further, that the respondents were prepared to deposit Rs,10 per P.I. Unit for the excess land. The petitioners'
Mukhbari application was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 8-5-1974. They filed a revision petition and a learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the same vide order dated 24-4-1976. It was challenged by the respondents through Writ Petition No,85-R of 1976/Bahawalpur.
2. A learned Judge of the High Court relying on a decision in Writ Petition No,1326-R-1963 handed down by a Division Bench of the High Court dated 27-11-1964 which was upheld by this Court on 1- 2-1965 and a subsequent decision of a Single Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No,371/R-70 decided on 21-12-1973, as well as section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 which entitles an occupant without title, to be offered the same for sale, accepted the writ petition, set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 24-4-1976 and restored that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 8-5-1974. This is vide order dated 20-1-1987. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against it.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that petitioners-- Mukhbars were entitled to the excess land. He placed reliance on Rehmat Ali v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1980 SC 214; Sadiq Ali v. Imtiaz Ahmad Khan PLD 1980 SC 222 and Barkat Ali v. Shahzad Nazir, 1981 SCMR 693.
4. From the statement of facts made above, it would be noticed that Makhna since deceased and represented by his heirs, respondents 1 to 5 was allotted land in the year 1960 on the basis of the verification under Schedule V to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. When such verifications were intermeddled on receipt of Jamabandis from India by the Central Record Office, Lahore it was decided by the Central Government, to avoid disturbance of the settled displaced persons over again, that initial verification should stand and subsequent ignored. Nor could the subsequent verification hold the field as it was behind the back of persons in whose favour earlier verification had been made. The decision was just and in accordance with the purpose of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws. It was given effect to by a learned Division Bench of the High Court and the order was upheld by this Court. The learned Judge has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and the precedents. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Mukhbars should have been allowed excess allotment is without force for reason that the question of excess did not arise in view of the decision of the Central Government as upheld in precedent cases. Nonetheless, for the assumed excess the respondents were allowed to purchase the same under the latest enactment (Act XIV of 1975). They are left with less than their due. The order of the learned Single Judge sought to be appealed against is just and most equitable. The entire allotment is 15-1/2 acres and it is to be shared by a widow, two daughters and two sons. No interference is called for at all.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed.