' The dispute in this case relates to land measuring 174 kanals 1 marla situate in village Lalewali, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot. This land was an evacuee property in possession of the Forest Department, It was allotted to Shukar Din respondent on 31-10-1964 who alienated the same to the petitioners. Some claimants residents of the aforesaid village assailed the allotment of land in favour of Shukar Din respondent in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but the same was dismissed on 15-1-1968. They preferred revision petition against the aforesaid order but that too failed before the Settlement Commissioner on 10-7-1968. Afterwards respondent No,3 moved application under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on the ground that the land in question was on lease with the Forest Department for a period of 20 years and was not allotable. The Settlement Commissioner presumably exercising the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 25-3-1972 proceeded ex-parte and cancelled the allotment of land made in favour of Shukar Din respondent. The petitioners being vendees of the land in question filed appeal against the aforementioned order which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 30-3-1980.
' Aggrieved by that order the petitioners filed W.P.No,655-R/80 which was disposed of vide order dated 13-2-1983 with the observation that the petitioners if have any grievance after the 8th June, 1982 they may resort to any other remedy available to them. Eventually the petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by means of the instant writ petition.
2. Shukar Din respondent No,4 was proceeded ex parte on 26-4-1988
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute from an allottee. It is pointed out that the Supreme Court on identical question in case "the Province of Punjab through Secretary, Forestry and Wildlife, Lahore v. Muhammad Mahmood Shah and others " (C.A. No, 307 of 1981) and other connected appeals on 9.1.1991 has held in para. 12 of the judgment:- "In view of our discussion above the allotments finalized before 27-21965 hold good. Those made after were in violation of the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and cannot, therefore, be sustained."
It is submitted that in view of the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court the allotment of land made on 31-10-1964 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners holds good and is subject to no exception.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 states that the Forest Department was party to the above-referred case decided by the Supreme Court and the position highlighted in the aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the circumstances of the instant case.
5. In the result this petition succeeds and the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are thus declared to be of no legal consequence.
6. There shall be however, no order as to costs.