RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is an appeal by Muhammad Boota and others, appellants, calling in question the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1975 dismissing their writ petition. Leave in this case was granted to consider the question whether Noor Ahmad respondent No. 2 could avail of the benefit of section 6 of the General Clauses Act as it was not stated in the order passed on 21-2-1967 that the cancelled land could be allotted to Noor Ahmad respondent No. 2 and whether the said respondent could draw the benefit from the concession allowed to informers by section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, as amended by Act XXXVI of 1974.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellants, who are claimant displaced persons, migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from East Punjab and settled in Chak No. 16/SP, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, where they were given temporary allotments of land. The claims filed by the appellants for verification of land were verified by Central Record Room and necessary `Fard Haqiats' were also issued. The lands in lieu of their entitlements were confirmed, leaving a balance of 485 P.1. Units pending satisfaction.
3. One Muhammad Hussain, a confirmed allottee of land measuring 76 Kanals 16 Marla~ equivalent to 548 P.1. Units (wrongly shown 58 Kanals 12 Marlas), sold the land to Muhammad Nawaz through a registered sale-deed dated 16-11-1962. The mutation regarding sale was sanctioned on 25-8-1963.
It was then sold to Muhammad Boota appellant No. 1 by Muhammad Nawaz through registered sale-deed on 1-12-1964. A mutation in this behalf was also approved on 24-3-1965.
4. The Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sahiwal on 21-2-1967 ordered the cancellation of land earlier confirmed in favour of Muhammad Hussain, while deciding a Mukhbari application filed by Messrs Noor Ahmad respondent No. 2 and Munir Ahmad his brother, who is no more in the picture.
5. Some of the land being available, was proposed in favour of present appellants at Khatas Nos.
441 and 442 on 5-7-1968. Some of the land was also proposed at Khata No. 374 in favour of Mst.
Hayat Bibi. All these lands, however, were confirmed in favour of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din vide ex parte order dated 2-3-1970, while approving the ex parte report dated 11-11-1969 made by Member, Allotment Committee. It appears that Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din was confirmed the land as an informer.
6. The order dated 2-3-1970 was appealed against before Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sahiwal, by (i) present appellants and (ii) respondent No. 2 and Munir Ahmad. Another appeal was filed by appellant No. 1 against confirmation of land at Khata No. 374 in favour of Mst.
Hayat Bibi and Akbar Ali etc. The appeal filed by present appellants against Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's confirmation was heard and accepted on 25-8-1971 and the illegal confirmation of land made to Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din was set aside and it was directed that the land proposed in favour of present appellants be confirmed to them. It is significant that the same Additional Settlement Commissioner illegally accepted another appeal filed by Munir Ahmad respondent No. 2, vide his separate ex parte order dated 25-8-1971 behind the back of the present appellants. It was directed that the land be confirmed in lieu of his unsettled units. The appeal of appellant No. 1 against Mst.
Hayat Bibi etc. Was, however, rejected by a separate order dated 25-8-1971.
7. That there were 5 petitions for revision before the Settlement Commissioner i.e. (1) Muhammad Boota v. Mst. Hayat Bibi and others, (2) Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others, (3)
Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Mst. Hayat Bibi and others, (4) Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Mian Nur Ahmad and (5) Akbar Ali Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Mian Nur Ahmad and another. These revision petitions were heard and remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Pakpattan, "to examine the case in the light of the record RL-11 and any other documents which the parties may like to produce before him". Nur Ahmad respondent No. 2, however, was declared as an informer.
The Writ Petition No. 215-R of 1972 filed by the appellants against this order failed on 11-4-1972 and the same was the fate of the Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge while observing that writ petition was premature, refused to interfere in remand order. The order of the learned Single Judge was maintained by the Supreme Court. It is significant that matter was not decided on merits but on the sole ground of prematurity.
8. That in the remand proceedings the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 7-6- 1973 confirmed the land at Khata No. 441/126 in favour of Chuhar son of Muhammad Bakhsh, at Khata No. 440/88 in favour of Gulzar son of Niaz, at Khata No. 442/90 in favour of Chaju son of Boora and at Khata No. 449 in favour of Boota son of Riaz. An independent detailed order regarding this confirmation was also passed on 7-6-1973.
9. That three appeals were filed by (1) Nur Ahmad, (2) Ghulam Mohyud Din and (3) Hayat Bibi, Akbar Ali and others. These were treated as revisions and were entrusted by the Settlement Commissioner to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for disposal. The Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition filed by Munir Ahmed respondent No. 2 and set aside the confirmation of land made by the Deputy- Settlement Commissioner on 7-6-1973.
10. The present appellants thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 237/11 of 1974 against the order dated 11- 12-1973. Which was rejected on 5-3-1975.
11. The appellants now challenge the above order of the High Court.
12. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that when the land measuring 76 Kanals 16 Marlas was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sahiwal, from the name of Muhammad Hussain vide order dated 21-2-1967 passed on the application of Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2, no direction was given by the said officer regarding the allotment of the said land in favour of the said respondent. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 21-2-1967 attained finality. It is further contended that on 21-2-1967, when the land was cancelled from the name of Muhammad Boota appellant No. 1, the concession extended to informers of bogus allotments to claim the said land under section 71-A of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme stood withdrawn, thus Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 had no preferential right of allotment of the cancelled lands over the present appellants who were sitting allottees. In connection with the finding given by the learned Single Judge that as Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 had initiated proceedings before the letter of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14-5-1964 had issued, para. 71-A of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme was in operation and therefore the withdrawal of the said paragraph by the letter of 14-5-1964 was not applicable to pending proceedings, which continued to be governed by the said paragraph, it is submitted that the said paragraph 71-A could not endure after 14-5-1964, as it stood withdrawn, and respondent No. 2 had no preferential claim over the appellants, who were sitting allottees on 21-2-1967 when the appellants' lands were cancelled. It is further contended that in any case the Deputy Settlement Commissioner again proposed and confirmed the lands in favour of the present appellants on 7- 6-1973 in the remand proceedings and that Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 not being a sitting allottee, had no right to the same. In these circumstances the Additional Settlement Commissioner could not have confirmed lands in favour of Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 on 11-12-1973, much less the High Court could have confirmed that order, as by now section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, completely barred respondent No. 2 from claiming the lands, as against the appellants who were sitting allottees.
13. On behalf, of the respondent No. 2 it is submitted that the lands were rightly resumed from the appellants and confirmed in his favour, as he had a right in 1967 and 1973 to secure their allotment over the appellants.
14. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and have also perused the record. It is admitted that the mukhbar's application of Noor Ahmed, respondent No. 2, was filed before 74-5-1964, the date when the benefit of para. 71-A of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement was withdrawn. Since no allotment was made to respondent No. 2 before this date, the said application lapsed and became legally ineffective.
Assuming some proceedings were pending thereon, the proceedings could not have been continued after 14-5-1964. See Allah Ditta v. Jan Muhammad PLD 1974 SC 113 and Khuda Bakhsh v.
Khushi Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 208. The proceedings would have abated.
15. So far as the order of cancellation of the lands confirmed in favour of Muhammad Hussain is concerned which was passed on 21-2-1967 by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Sahiwal, it did not mention expressly that the same was being allotted to Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 in his capacity as informant. The finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that this order also granted the allotment to respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained. No vested right therefore accrued to respondent No. 2 by the said order.
16. Again when the appeal of Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 was accepted on 25-8-1971 against the confirmation of the lands made in favour of Ghulam Mohyud Din, the said order did mention that the same be allotted to respondent No. 2 as mukhbar, but the said order was ex parte qua all the appellants. As against this, there was the order of the same officer who accepted the appeals of the appellants also against the confirmation made in favour of Ghulam Mohyud Din. Both these contradictory orders cancelled each others. In any case, after the various revision petitions were filed, the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision, who on 7-6-1973 maintained the allotments in favour of the appellants, as they were sitting allottees in the estate and some parts of their verified claims were also unsatisfied. It was also observed by the said officer that Noor Ahmad respondent No. 2, who was not a sitting allottee, had not registered his claim in the said Chak No. 16/SP and in accordance with the decision of this Court in Atta Elahi's case 1972 SCM R 532 the informer could not override the sitting allottees.
17. It was not until 11-12-1973 that the effective and now the order in dispute was passed in favour of Noor Ahmad respondent No. 2 whereby the allotments of the appellants were cancelled and the said lands were confirmed in his favour. The said order was void as it was passed by an officer who had no jurisdiction. An appeal had been filed against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 7-6-1973. Under the new amendment to the law, the appeal had to be heard as a revision by the Settlement Commissioner, whereas the same was heard and decided by an Additional Settlement Commissioner, which order was therefore void. Even otherwise, the said order was never implemented, due to the intervening Constitutional petition and the present appeal, where status quo orders were granted. With the passing of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974, which substituted subsection (1-A) to section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the right of the informer to they resumed land was taken away, if the same was already under allotment to some other person, in which case he was entitled to allotment, to the extent of his entitlement from any other land of his choice available for allotment.
The said subsection (1-A) of section 14 of Act XLVII of 1958, newly-substituted by Act XXXVI of 1974 has a retrospective effect. See Inayat Khan v. Muhammad Suleman 1987 SCMR 1500. In these circumstances, the present appellants cannot be disturbed and Noor Ahmed respondent No. 2 is entitled to allotment, to the extent of his entitlement, from any other land available for allotment in the same province.
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Sahiwal, dated 11-12-1973 and that of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1975 are set aside and the order of the A.C./Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L), Pakpattan, dated 7-6-1973 is restored.
There shall be no order as to costs.