1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The facts of the case have admirably been summarised in the judgment in the Intra-Court Appeal dated 25-10-1983.
2. ' Shortly speaking by an order dated 31-3-1981 the Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled certain allotments made in village Manga Hithar and Bhamba Kalan in the name of one Sukha on the ground that these allotments were bogus. Mst. Bhurian, daughter of Sukha, together with her children challenged the said order through Writ Petition No,322/R of 1981. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. From the said order of the learned Single Judge, Mst. Bhurian and her children filed an Intra-Court Appeal. This appeal was allowed by a Division Bench on 22-2-1983. In so far as the allotment in village Bhamba Kalan was concerned, the Division Bench held that the land in this village was not allotted to Sukha but to one Jumma and that Mst. Bhurian had purchased it from Jumma.
3. ' In the meanwhile, on 11-4-1982, Mst. Bhurian and her sisters (petitioners Nos.2 and 3 herein), as daughters of Sukha, filed the present writ petition to challenge the order of the Settlement Commissioner with regard to the allotment in village Manga Hithar. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners could not be permitted to split up the grievance by challenging the two orders in two separate writ petitions.
4. ' Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners filed an Intra-Court Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge. The learned Judges of the Division Bench observed that there was no explanation by Mst. Bhurian that she had failed to agitate against the cancellation of the allotment relating to the land in village Manga Hithar in the earlier writ petition (No,322/R of 1981). Hence the learned Single Judge was justified in taking the view that Mst. Bhurian could not be permitted to split up her grievance. As regards petitioners Nos.2 and 3 (sisters of Mst. Bhurian) it was observed that their case suffered from laches. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was made more than a year before they chose to come to this Court and no explanation as to why they kept quiet for more than a year was furnished. In these circumstances, the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
5. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. In our opinion, the case requires further consideration. We observe that the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 did not seem to be aware of the order of cancellation. Hence the question of laches in their case did not really arise. Even otherwise we feel that when the petitioners are in possession of this land since long and if they are otherwise entitled to get it, it would not be equitable to oust them simply on the ground of laches, in all the circumstances.
7. ' Status quo to be maintained.
8. ' Security to be furnished in the sum of Rs,5,000.