1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 26th of November 1973, whereby a writ petition instituted by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 in respect of an area of evacuee agricultural land situate in village Budhu-- pur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, was accepted, and the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner cancell--ing its allotment and confirmation from the names of the respondents were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The relevant facts are that the land in dispute was allotted in the name of the present petitioner Mst. Jannat on the 20th of August 1952, against her verified claim. However, by an order made on the 25th of January 1960, by the Central Record Office her claim was cancelled, and this cancellation was given effect to by the field staff on 27-10-60. Mst. Jannat challenged the legality of these actions by instituting Writ Petition No. 322-R of 1961, but the same was dismissed in limine on 16-3-62 by a learned Judge of the High Court.
3. The land in dispute having become available for fresh allotment on the cancellation of Mst.
4. Jannat's claim, the same was allotted to the respon--dents by orders dated the 28th of December 1960, and the 5th of September 1961.
5. After a lapse of several years, on the 18th of November 1964, the petitioner moved the Central Record Office for a re-consideration of her claim. By an order made on the 13th of January 1965, a fresh Fard Haqiat was issued in favour of the petitioner. Armed with this restoration of her Fard Haqiat, Mst. Jannat filed an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner against the allotment and confirmation of the land in favour of the respondents. This appeal was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 22nd of July 1965, on the ground that her previous allotment was cancelled for no fault of her own and without giving her an opportunity of being heard. He observed that there was no surplus area available in the village and as such she was entitled to get back the area previously held by her. As a result, he set aside the orders dated the 28th of December 1960, and the 5th of September 1961, by which the land had been confirmed in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by this appellate order, the respondents filed a revision petition which was, however, dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 22nd of December 1965.
6. It was in these circumstances, that the respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
7. In the order under appeal, the learned Judge has observed that the land, having been allotted by a valid order in favour of the respondents, was settled on them permanently in 1964 by virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and this valuable right could not be taken away from them because of the re-verification of the claim of the previous allottee. He has also taken note of the fact that if Mst. Jannat was agitating the matter for re- verification of her claim, then she should have also taken action under paragraphs 18, 20, 61 and 62 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, under which reservation up to at least 75 % of her entitlement could have been made pending final re-verification by the Central Record Office. As Mst. Jannat did not take any such steps, the allotment, which had become final in favour of the respondents, could not be disturbed. On this view of the matter, the High Court has set aside the appellate and the revisional orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commis--sioner, with the result that the land continues in the name of the respondents as allotted and confirmed in their favour by orders dated the 28th of December 1960, and the 5th of September 1961.
8. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the learned Judge in the High Court has omitted to take note of the fact that the petitioner's claim was cancelled without giving her any show-cause notice, and that this void order was subsequently rightly rescinded by the Central Record Office, with the result that the petitioner was entitled to the restoration of the land in dispute. It is next submitted that section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, itself contains a proviso to the effect that "no order of permanent settlement shall be passed in cases where the land held by the allottee concerned is the subject-matter of an appeal or revision or review before a Rehabilitation authority". It is argued that as in this case a review petition had been instituted on 18-11-1964 with the Central Record Office, the land could not have been permanently settled on the respondents.
9. While it is undoubtedly correct that the petitioner, as the temporary allottee of the land in dispute, had a preferential right to its confirmation, but the fact remains that by orders made on 25-1-60 and 27-10-60, the land had been cancelled from her name, and thus became available for allotment and confirmation to other claimants. On the dates on which the land in dispute was confirmed in favour of the respondents, there was no legal impediment in the way of its confirmation, with the result that the land did become permanently settled on the respondents in terms of sections 15 and 16 of the Act. Whatever the merits of the order of cancellation passed against the petitioner by the Central Record Office on the 25th of January 1960, that order became final after the dismissal of Mst. Jannat's writ petition by the High Court on 16-3 1962. She did not agitate any further in the matter by filing a Letters Patent Appeal against that order, or by filing a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court. As a result, the matter was allowed to rest at this stage until two years and eight months later, on the 18th of November 1964, the petitioner submitted a representa--petition or review petition too the Central Record Office. Thus, by her own default and negligence, the petitioner had allowed valuable rights to mature in favour of the respondents. In these circumstances she is now estopped from disturbing those rights after the lapse of so many years.
10. The contention that the land could not be permanently settled in favour of the respondents, because it was still open to the petitioner to apply to the Central Record Office for a review or re- consideration of its previous order, has no merit whatsoever for the reason that the petitioner had accepted the cancellation of her own claim, once her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the 16th of March 1962. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to give any explanation whatsoever for the delay of two years and eight months which had occurred on the part of the petitioner before re-agitating the matter with the Central Record Office. We have already stated that the High Court has taken note of the fact that during this period she did not move under the relevant Paragraphs of the Rehabilita--petition Settlement Scheme to obtain a reservation of the land in dispute to the extent of 75 % of her claimed entitlement.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the order made by the High Court in favour of the respondents is correct, and does not need any interference on our part. The petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
12. We were informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute had been sold by the petitioner to a gentleman by the name of Shabbir Hussain, who in turn had alienated the same in favour of other vendees, who were bound to suffer as a result of the order made by the High Court. If these vendees are bona fide purchasers for good consideration, and there does not appear to be any indication to the contrary, we trust that the Settlement authorities would endeavour to allot land to the vendees, wherever it may be available, against the verified claim of the petitioner, Mst. Jannat.