1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner No.6, a displaced claimant from India, was allotted 42 kanals of land by the Settlement Commissioner ` (Lands) Mr. Zaka Ullah Malik on 1-2-1973 in village Bhakewal. He sold the said land to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 4 and to Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner No.5. The order of allotment dated 1-2-1973 was not challenged in Writ Petition No.402-R of 1976. However, this allotment too has been set aside by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 6-4-1988 while accepting the aforesaid writ petition.
2. The contention urged before us is that the High Court could not have set aside the said allotment because it cannot, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, issue a writ suo motu.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have been heard.
4. We have held while disposing of Civil Petition No.334-R of 1988, which has been heard alongwith this petition, that the High Court cannot while deciding a writ petition issue a writ suo motu and have converted the said petition into an appeal and allowed it. This case is also quite similar.
5. The result is that this petition for leave is also converted into an appeal and allowed. The order of the High Court dated 6-4-1988 to the extent that it has declared the order of allotment dated 1-2- 1973 made in favour of petitioner No.6 to be without lawful authority is found to be erroneous in law and is hereby set aside. It is declared that the aforesaid order dated 1-2-1973 is valid, legal and subsisting and rules the field.
6. No costs.