' This writ petition has been filed on the principal grievance that jurisdiction of a Notified Officer in terms of sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was confined to cancellation of allotment of land if it was found to be bogus or without entitlement as a result of Mukhbari proceedings.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were displaced persons from India and after migration to Pakistan after Independence were allotted land in village Jalalpur Sobtian District Gujrat in the year 1949. This was confirmed in their favour on 13-11-1953 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner.
According to the averments of the petitioners themselves the land so confirmed included some land which was lying vacant in the village but had not been allotted to them nor was in possession of any other person. The case has a chequered history and it is unnecessary to recapitulate the entire course of events.
3. There were Mukhbari proceedings against several persons which were decided by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division purporting to possess the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, who vide order dated 15-4-1982 found that the respondents before him had excess entitlement and that in the interest of justice and fairplay the excess allotment of Produce Index Units to the respondents should continue and the respondents may not be penalised for no fault on their part specially when the major portion of the property had changed several hands during the last thirty years.
4. This writ petition .Has been filed to agitate the grievance that after the information about the bogus and excess units if the allotment of land was found to be correct by the Notified Officer under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act he was obliged to transfer it to the informer under section 14 (1-A) of the same Act. It is being contended that the Notified Officer could not allow respondent No,1 to purchase the excess land. I need not dilate on the matter further because after some arguments all the counsel in this case agreed that the material aspect of the case had not been fully examined by the Notified Officer in the impugned order dated 15-4- 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Ch. Nazir Ahmad, learned counsel for the Settlement Department and Mr. Nasim Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,1, all agreed that the case should be remanded to the Notified Officer for resolution of the question whether or not he possessed the power to allow sale of the excess land beyond claimant's entitlement and disposal of property after resumption. It is also agreed on all hands that a direction be issued to the Member Board of Revenue (S & R), Punjab, to entrust this case to a Notified Officer to examine the legal question whether in terms of the instructions a Notified Officer could allow sale of the excess land and if so at what rate and whether it was to be given to the Informer if such Informer's entitlement was found to be genuine and available for satisfaction?
5. I have considered the matter and find that indeed the Notified Officer has not applied his conscious mind to all these legal requirements. The case is accordingly remanded for resolution of these questions and disposal of the matters mentioned above in accordance with law.
' In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.