1. WAHEEDUDDIN AFIMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 347 of 1966, dated the 25th February 1966. By this judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of agricultural land measuring 253 kanals, 5 marlas, situated in village Aadhosana at Khata No. 29 of the R. L. II, against Claim No. 2780. This land was confirmed in favour of the appellants for the land abandoned by their predecessor-in---interest Mandhu son of Suba, in village Toorbani, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, India. Mandhu died in the year 1947. After Partition, the appellants migrated to Pakistan and settled in village Aadhoaana, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. They obtained temporary allotment of the land in their favour in the year 1947-48. This land was confirmed in Khata No. 29 of R. L. II, which was drawn up on the 12th January 1952 and confirmed on the 31st January 1952. It is alleged that the appellants have continued in undisputed possession and personal cultivation of the confirmed land since 31st January 1952. According to the appellants, they have become the owners of the land under sections 15 and 16 of the Displaced Persons (hand Settlement) Act, 1958, since 24th December 1958.
3. It appears that the claim form which was submitted by the appellants for village Aadhosana which was verified in the year 1951, was sent due to some mistake to Vehari in the District of Multan. The appellants, however, got it transferred later on through a petition dated the 27th December 1951 and it was thereafter that the confirmed allotment was made at Khata No. 29 of R. L. II.
4. The appellants' village is situated within five miles of the Indo-Pakistan border belt. After the commencement of the West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959, the Border Area Committee scrutinised the allotment of the appellants on the 25th May 1962 and being satisfied about the regularity of the allotment and the rights of the appellants to retain it, found a few Khasra numbers doubly allotted. They cancelled these Khasra numbers and gave land in their place which was granted on the 25th June 1962. The allotment and the Khata of the appellants was found in order.
5. Respondent No. 2's husband had been allotted land in village Reyal, Tehsil Shakargarh. This was cancelled by the Border Area Committee on the ground that the claim was not filed within the target date, i.e., 24th December 1952. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 applied to the Border Area Committee that the claim of the appellants was got transferred after the target date. On the 24th November 1964, the Border Area Committee held on enquiry that the claim of the appellants was filed in time and rejected the application of respondent No. 2. Later on, respondent No. 2 filed another application for cancellation of the land of the appellants. Appellant No. 5 appeared and objected to the jurisdiction of the Border Area Committee to re-open the matter already decided on the two occasions. He pleaded the correct and valid settlement of the claim of the appellants and urged that the Committee could not review its previous order. He also filed a Writ Petition No. 1717 of 1965 to challenge the notice issued by the Border Area Committee, which was dismissed as being premature on the 9th February 1965. In spite of the objection filed by the appellants before the Border Area Committee, the Committee cancelled the land of the appellants on the 9th February 1966, by completely ignoring the evidence of the appellants and the record. They placed reliance on an unauthentic and unproved report of some Patwaris in District Montgomery produced by respondent No. 2, stating that the claim of the appellants had been transferred from District Montgomery on the 30th September 1953. The Committee further ordered that the land be given to respondent No. 2. The appellants challenged the order of respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 347 of 1966, which was dismissed in limine on the 25th February 1966. The appellants have challenged this order in this appeal before us.
6. Special leave was granted to the appellants against the said order of the High Court on the 6th April 1966, to consider the question whether on the 9th February 1966, when the Border Area Committee made the impugned order the appellants did not hold the land in dispute as allottees under the Rehabilitation authorities, which appears to be a necessary condition for the exercise of power under paragraph 10 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 9-B.
7. Ch. Amjad Khan, learned counsel for the appellants, has taken us through R. L.11 of village Aadhoaana, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot and record of the Colonization Officer, Pakpattan regarding transfer of claim form No. 278u of Mandhu son of Saba from District Montgomery to District Sialkot. We have gone through the record. The record shows that Claim Form No. 2780 was submitted by the appellants for village Aadhosana where they were holding temporary allotment.
8. It was verified in the year 1951. Due to some mistakes, it had been sent over to Vehari in District Multan but the appellants got it transferred through a petition dated the 27th December 1951. The Border Area Committee scrutinised it on the 25th June 1962 and held the allotment in order on the 25th June l9N2. It further shows that the application for the allotment of the land in dispute was received in the Border Area Committee by the due date, namely, 24th December 1952.
9. After seeing the record, the learned counsel for the Border Area Committee, Mr. Mannan had not oppose, the appeal. Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also was unable to show us that the claim of the appellants had not been received in the Border Area Committee by the target date i.e. 24th December 1952.
10. After going through the record and considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the Border Area Committee dated the 9th February 1966, is based on wrong facts. The report of the Patwari is not based on any authentic data and the Border Area Committee has relied on it illegally. The record proved beyond doubt that the claim of the appellants had been received in the Border Area Committee by the target date, 24th December 1952. In view of this, the order of the Border Area Committee dated the 9th February 1966, is set aside and the allotment of the appellants is restored. The costs of the appeal will be paid by the respondent.