JUDGMENTZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.- Facts forming the background of this case are . Very brief and simple. Petitioners along with some others filed W.P. No.630 of 1965. During the course of hearing of that petition, it was submitted by the Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the Provincial Government that the claim of the petitioners stood transferred to some other estate on the date of filing of writ petition. He, however, stated that in case their claim was still available in the revenue estate, Provincial Government shall allow the land in dispute to be confirmed in their favour so as to avoid dislocation of genuine claimants. In view of the statement of the learned Assistant Advocate-General, writ petition was diposed of vide order dated 10.6.1970, operative part of which relevant for the disposal of this writ petition is reproduced hereunder:- "In the circumstances, learned counsel for the parties agree that the best course would be to let the case be examined by the learned Settlement Commissioner to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to determine the disputed question of fact just mentioned as well as the entitlement of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme. In case the learned Settlement Commissioner finds that the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of the land on account of their claim pending in this estate on the date of institution of the writ petition, he shall make the necessary order irrespective of the fact that the land no longer forms part of the compensation pool."
It was agreed by the parties that the decision of the Settlement Commissioner shall be final insofar as the Settlement courts are concerned.
2. It appears that the matter was taken up by the learned Additional Commissioner (C) with the powers of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who found the petitioners not to be entitled to confirmation of the land on account of some instructions dated 16.5.1973 received from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Petitioners, therefore, again approached this Court in Writ Petition No.623 of 1973 contending therein that the instructions relied upon by the Settlement Commissioner could not be given retrospective effect so as to take away the effect of the order passed by this Court inter partes on 10.6.1970. This contention was accepted by Mr. Justice A.S.Salam (as his Lordship then was), the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 7.7.1973 was declared to be without lawful authority and the case remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that he shall entrust the same to a Notified Officer for proceeding in accordance with the decision of the High Court dated 10.6.1970 passed in Writ Petition No.630-1965.
3. Petitioner then made an application before the Settlement Commissioner (L) who after examining the relevant record came to the conclusion that "it is proved that the claim of the petitioners was originally verified for Chak No.224/R.B and were not transferred any where eke. The land allotted to them temporarily under the Rehabilitation Scheme is still in their possession and therefore in light of the observation in Writ Petition No.630 of 1965 they are entirely qualified to hold this allotment on permanent basis to the extent of their entitlement." This was vide order dated 28.7.1980. Respondents, it is com t-mined, declined to implement the said order of the Settlement Commissioner. Peuiiuiu. Rs were, therefore, constrained to resort to this Court once more by filing the present constitutional petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Advocate-General for the respondents. Learned Advocate-General points out with reference to the report/para wise comments submitted on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, on 13.9.1987 that the Claim Form No.2529 of Sardar Muhammad petitioner was entered at Khata No. 18 of Register RL.II by a Patwari who remained posted in that Halqa from 28.2.73 to 9.6.76 and as such "the Claim Form was not pending in Chak No.224/RB in 1965/1966."
As regards Claim Form No.2519 of Waryam petitioner, it is stated that it was initially issued for Chak No. 224/RB but was later transferred to Chak No.67/JB. Learned Advocate-General k, however, not in a position to state as to when was this claim transferred from Chak No.224/RB nor am be advert to any order of any competent authority transferring the claim in question from Chak No.224/RB. Be that as it may, the petition flow being canvassed on behalf of the respondents was admittedly not taken in the earlier round of litigation when the petitioner's writ petition No.623 of 1973 seeking the implementation of the order dated 10.6.1970 passed in Writ Petition No.630 of 1965 was heard and accepted. In the circumstances, respondents cannot be permitted to take this position for the first time in these proceedings particularly when the Notified Officer has found it as a fact that the claim of the petitioner was originally verified for Chak No.224/RB and was never transferred to any other estate. It is significant that this finding as per the order dated 10.6.1970 passed in Writ Petition No.630 of 1965 was final and the respondents never challenged it in any appropriate proceedings.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the respondents are bound to implement the order passed by the Notified Officer on 28.7.1980. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs and the respondents are directed to implement the order of the Notified Officer dated 28.7.1980 in letter and spirit.