AJMAL MIAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted by this Court against the judgment, dated 19-5- 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.416-R of 1979 to consider, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's petition inter alia on the ground that respondent No.1 would have no alternate land if the appellant's petition was to be allowed.
2. The facts to be noted are that land measuring 283 kanals 19 marlas situate in village Siri Rampura was allotted in the name of Mst. Gbulam Fatima against her Claim Form No.4894 whereas 218 kanals 5 marlas of land situate it the same village was allotted to Mst. Niaz Fatima against her Claim Form No.4898/5002 on 25-7-1967. The aforesaid two allottees sold the aforesaid land to respondent No.8 as per Mutations Nos. 1 and 2 sanctioned on 25-9-1967, who in turn sold the said land to the appellant through mutation dated 9-4-1969. As per averment of the appellant, he discovered in the year 1971 that respondent No.1 claiming to be a heir of Mst. Ahmadi, widow of Abdul Hamid, and Abdul Aziz son of Nathu got allotted 249 kanals 1 marla on 2-1-1970 against Claim Form No.9007. Thereupon, the appellant riled an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sheikhupura i.e. Respondent No.6 challenging the aforesaid allotment made on 2-1-1970 but the above application was dismissed on 23-11-1972. The appellant, against the above orders, filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed in default by an order, dated 28-11-1973. After that, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.25/R/74 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through a judgment, dated 30-8- 1974, the operative portion of which reads as follows:--
(9) For the foregoing reasons I have no alternative but to accept this petition and hold that the order, dated the 28th of November, 1973, passed by respondent No.3, in refusing to restore the appeal was against law and without lawful authority. This case is, therefore, remitted to Respondent No.3, for a fresh disposal of the application made by the petitioner for the restoration of his appeal after the necessary enquiry into the matter. But there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case."
3. It appears that while the above proceedings were going on, the appellant approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of allotment obtained by respondent No.1 against aforesaid Claim Form No.9007 which according to him had already been satisfied in village Hardo Ladhey Key. The appellant also challenged the status of respondent No.1 to be a heir of Mst. Ahmadi and Abdul Aziz, right holders of aforesaid Claim Form No.9007. The aforesaid application was marked to the Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala for enquiry who according to the appellant recommended on 15-1-1974 the cancellation of the allotment of land obtained by respondent No.1 in the names of Mst. Ahmadi and Abdul Aziz, holding it to be a case of double allotment. The above recommendation came up for consideration alongwith the proceedings in pursuance of aforesaid remand order of the High Court passed in the aforesaid earlier writ petition. The Settlement Commissioner relying upon the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondent No.1 in village Hardo Ladhey Key on 30-6-1977 declined to interfere with his order, dated 5-3-1979. The appellant filed aforesaid Writ Petition No.416-R of 1979 in which he impugned the Settlement Commissioner's aforesaid order, dated 5-3-1979 and the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Ferozewala's order, dated 30-6-1977 whereby the allotment made in village Hardo Ladhey Key in favour of respondent No.1 was cancelled upon her own application. The above petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Leave was granted to consider the aforesaid question.
4. We have heard Mr. A.R. Sheikh, learned A.S.C. For the appellant and Mr. Samad Mahmood, learned A.S.C. For the respondents and have also gone through the various orders. The position which has emerged is that the High Court's aforesaid remand order, dated 30-8-1974 passed in the earlier Writ Petition No.25/R/74 has not been complied with till today. The learned Settlement Commissioner declined to examine the legality of the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 23-11-1972 in which the findings were recorded against the appellant's predecessor-in-interest Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Niaz Fatima, on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Ferozewala on 30-6-1977 not only accepted the surrender of allotment in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the land situated in village Hardo Ladhey Key but also directed that the allotment of the land in question i.e. Land situated in village Siri Rampura be kept intact. The High Court in the aforesaid second writ petition was influenced by the fact that if the land in question was to be cancelled from the name of respondent No.1. She would not have any other land.
5. In our view, the Settlement Commissioner was duty bound to comply with the aforesaid direction of the High Court given on 30-8-1974 in the earlier writ petition. The aforesaid order, dated 30-6- 1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Ferozewla, in favour of respondent No.1 in a proceeding to which the appellant was not a party, could not have been a ground for not complying with the above direction of the High Court. We would, therefore, allow the above appeal and set aside the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, dated 19-5-1979 and the aforesaid Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 5-3-1979. The case is remanded to the relevant Notified Officer who is acting as the. Settlement Commissioner (Lands) to proceed in terms of the aforesaid remand order, dated 30-8-1974 passed in aforesaid Writ Petition No.25--R of 1974. He shall dispose of the matter within four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of judgment. The parties shall be at liberty to raise whatever pleas available to them. However; there will be no order as to costs.