' The petitioners are refugees from Jammu and Kashmir State and were allotted land measuring 30 Kanals 16 Marlas in village Sadharwali, Tehsil and District Sialkot for the purpose of maintenance vide Permit No,8314 dated 28-6-1954 issued by the Addl. Revenue Officer, Sialkot. The allotment was in favour of petitioner No,1 as head of the family. It appears that an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was filed by respondent No,1 stating that the petitioners had obtained transfer of land at Khata No,116 of R.L.II Register in village Dhainsar Pain, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, therefore, they were not entitled to retain the land which was in their temporary allotment. The petitioners contested the application on the plea that althuogh their claim had been verified for 426 PI Units, it appears to have been stolen by somebody who got land allotted in village Dhainsar Pain without the knowledge of the petitioners, and that allotment being unauthorised, may be cancelled. The learned Settlement Commissioner, however, found that in view of the transfer of the land in Dhainsar Pain, the petitioners were not entitled to retain the land in question which was ordered to be resumed. This order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 23-12-1976 has been assailed by the petitioners in this petition.
2. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioners, has reiterated the same arguments as were addressed by him before the Settlement Commissioner apart from contending that since the land in question has been allotted temporarily to the petitioners as. Jammu and Kashmir refugees, its allotment could not be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Reliance in this respect was placed on the authority of the Supreme Court reported as Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmad Khan and another PLD 1991 SC 391.
3. Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate, has been heard on behalf of respondent No,3. No one has entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in temporary allotment of Jammu and Kashmir refugees cannot be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act is fully supported by the authority of the Supreme Court relied upon by him. That being so, it is obvious that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, being respondent No,3, is without jurisdiction.
5. There is also merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the circumstances of the case the Settlement Commissioner should have held an inquiry as to whether it was the petitioner No, 1 who had obtained the land in village Dhainsar Pain in the face of his clear denial that he had not obtained any allotment in the said village and that somebody had impersonated him. The Settlement Commissioner, without undertaking an inquiry on that aspect, could not brush aside this stand as he did. For this reason also this order is not sustainable:
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs.