' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--This Settlement Revision is directed against order dated 13-9-1971 of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby he cancelled the allotment of land obtained by Gauhar All claimant at Khata Nos.12 and 13 in Chak No,4/Ford Wah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 23-8-1968, one Niamat Ali, son of Idu and Muhammad Hussain son of Fateh Muhammad residents of Akal Garh, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, filed application under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 alleging therein that Gauhar All son of Abdul Karim resident of Arifwala, District Sahiwal had obtained double allotment in village Akal Garh, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala as well as in Chak No, 4/Ford Wah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, with prayer for cancellation of the land secured by him in village Akal Garh, District Gujranwala. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner recorded statements of Gauhar Ali and others and found that on 11-10-1960 Gauhar All through his Attorney Shan Muhammad son of Kala obtained allotment of 684 urban units in Chak No,4/Ford Wah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahalwanagar in the absence of Gauhar All and that the same was confirmed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) who was not competent to do so. He further held that the subsequent sale of the urban land through oral transaction was invalid. He, therefore, cancelled the allotment of the land from his name. He, however, allowed him to retain the allotment of land obtained by him in adjustment of 684 units in village Akal Garh, District Gujranwala on the ground that the vendee from him had installed tubewell in the land and converted some portion thereof into residential area.
' Fazal Muhammad vendee of the land situate in Chak No,4/Ford Wah Chishtian, being aggrieved of cancellation of the allotment of land purchased by him preferred the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that Gauhar Ali claimant was allotted land in Chak No,4/Ford Wah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar towards satisfaction of his entire urban claim in the year 1960. He alienated the same in favour of Fazal Muhammad petitioner for valuable consideration. The mutation was also sanctioned in presence of the claimant-allottee/vendor. He was left with no claim to have allotment of land in village Akal Garh, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Gauhar Ali recorded on 3-7-1969 (Annex/D) wherein he categorically deposed that Shan Muhammad son of Kala was his attorney and he got allotment of land through him. It was also submitted that the absence of Gauhar Ali at the time of the allotment or confirmation thereof cannot render the allotment void. It was also argued that the allotment obtained by Gauhar Ali in Chak No,4/Ford Wah was prior in time. In case he obtained land in excess of his entitlement only the subsequent allotment of land in village Akal Garh was liable to'cancellation.
4. Learned counsel for respondents controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. It was submitted that the Tehsildar exercising powers of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, was not competent to confirm the allotment of land in favour of Gauhar All in Chak No,4/Ford, Wah, Tehsil Chishtian. The allotment made in absence of the claimant, was untenable, as against the allotment of land obtained by Gauhar Ali through his attorney Ghulam Ahmad in village Akal Garh. It was also stated that the land allotted in favour of Gauhar Ali in village Akal Garh in adjustment of his urban claim was improved by the vendee and converted into residential area.
It would be a matter of extreme hardship if the vendees are deprived from that land at this stage.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on the file. Admittedly the allotment of land obtained by Gauhar All through his attorney Shan Muhammad, son of Kala, in Chak No,4/Ford Wah, was prior in time. Gauhar Ali in his statement recorded on 3-7-1969 admitted that his attorney had obtained allotment of land in Chak No,4/Ford Wah and that the same was sold in favour of Fazal Muhammad petitioner. In reply to the objection raised by learned counsel for respondents that the allotment of land in Chak No,4/Ford Wah was confirmed by the Tehsildar, learned counsel for petitioner referred to Notification (Annex-C) showing that Haji Atta Muhammad Chisti, who was on 11-10-1960, Assistant Commissioner, Chishtian had confirmed the allotment under his signature therefore, the objection loses its significance. The allotment was validly made and confirmed.
6. We have carefully perused the statement of Gauhar Ali and find that he . Affirmed the allotment of land obtained by him in Chak No,4/Ford Wah through his attorney Shan Muhammad. He further affirmed the sale of the land in favour of Fazal Muhammad petitioner. He obtained allotment of land in 1960 in adjustment of his total urban claim in Chak No,4/Ford Wah thereby completely utilizing his claim. He had no balance claim for which he could obtain allotment in village Akal Garh, District Gujranwala. Gauhar Ali also pointed out in his statement that he appointed Ghulam Ahmad as his attorney but afterwards cancelled his power-of-attorney and that the latter obtained allotment of land in village Akal Garh after his power-of-attorney stood cancelled. On that score as well, the subsequent allotment obtained in village Akal Garh lost its legal efficacy. The mere fact that the vendee of the land of Akal Garh installed tube-well and converted the same into residential area would not validate the allotment fraudulently obtained, so as to deprive the petitioner who had purchased the land earlier allotted to Gauhar Ali in adjustment of his valid subsisting claim.
' For the reasons mentioned hereinafter we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No,1 with no order as to costs.