1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---These appeals through leave of the Court are directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby, in a land settlement matter the Constitutional
(Writ) Petition filed by the appellants' side in CA. 221 of 1979 was partly allowed. On the petition of the other side (now appellants in CA. 220 of 1979) leave to appeal was granted as under:-- "The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9th of October, 1979, by which Writ Petition No.955/R of 1971 was partly allowed.
2. "By an application dated 29th of April, 1959, the petitioner applied to the Secretary (Rural) to the Rehabilitation Commissioner for the allotment of the land mortgaged by Sunder Singh, an evacuee, in favour of Ata Muhammad and Abdur Rehman, situate in village Mudke Dhariwal, Tehsil Kasur, and further expressed his willingness therein to pay the mortgage money amounting to Rs.5,550. This application was sent to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, for disposal according to memorandum No.304/59/725/R(P) dated 5th of March, 1959. The petitioner, also applied, at the same time, that his unsatisfied claim pending in Bahawalpur be transferred to Lahore, a non-congested area. On 9th of May, 1959, it was reported after verification, that no other person had applied for the allotment of this land. It transpired, however, that on 6th May, 1959, one person, alongwith an advocate, appeared before the Reader to the A.D.C. (Rural) at Kasur with an application for the allotment of the land which was returned to the Advocate for presenting it to the Tehsildar. In the report of the A.D.C. Dated 14th of May, 1959, it was stated that no such application was received but alongwith this report a note of the Reader of the A.D.C. (Rural) was also sent. On 15th of May, 1959, the Additional Deputy Commissioner wrote to his counterpart at Bahawalpur that if his claim form was still unsatisfied it should be sent to Lahore which was, thereafter, duly transferred to Lahore.
3. "Chand Singh, it appears, also applied for the allotment of this land and on 19th of May, 1959, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rural), Lahore, ordered that the two claims be considered for the purpose of the allotment of the land. On 31st of August, 1959, some land was proposed to Chand Singh in Khata No.688. Again, on Ist of September 1969, the mortgage land was proposed to the petitioner in Khata No.745. At the time of the confirmation on 12th of November, 1959, the proposal made to the petitioner was cancelled and the land proposed to him was allotted to the respondent who did not accept the land proposed to him in Khata No.688. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore, which was accepted by order dated 15th of February, 1960, as it was held that it was the petitioner who was exclusively entitled to get the disputed land in preference to Chand Singh and others. Chand Singh filed a revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore, which was dismissed by order dated 30th of September, 1963. Chand Singh next preferred a second revision against this order in the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan which was converted into a Writ Petition and succeeded to the extent that half of the land allotted to the petitioner was given to him.
4. "In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contends: firstly, that the High Court was in error in holding that there was non-compliance of para. 12 of Part II of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme as the claim form was transferred by the D.R.C., Lahore, who was not competent to do so as that function was that of the D.R.C., Bahawalpur, where claim was pending; secondly that the High Court went wrong in converting the revision petition into a Writ Petition as, after the promulgation of Ordinance XIII of 1964, no revision lay under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to the High Court against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner who was denuded of the powers of review, revision and appeal, and hence, in law, it could not be deemed to be pending which could be converted into a Writ Petition-- (This contention though raised before the High Court was not dealt with in the judgment); thirdly, that there was no vested right in any particular property of the compensation pool and hence Chand Singh could not elect to refuse the proposal of the land made to him in Khata No.688.
5. Therefore, the settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to accept his election of the land proposed to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mian Rafi-ud-Din and others v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (PLD 1971 SC 252); and fourthly, that the High Court was not correct in holding that the particulars of the property were not given by the petitioner which was evident from para. 3 of his application dated 29th of April, 1959.
6. "On examining these contentions, we consider that they require consideration. The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1, urged that a cross-petition has been filed against the judgment of the High Court to challenge the retention of the half portion of the land by the petitioner and, therefore, he would also seek leave to appeal to assail it. Since that petition is not before us, no order can be passed now but as leave is granted in this petition, there will be no obstacle in the way to grant leave in that petition.
7. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner."
8. As is apparent from the narration of facts at the Bar and otherwise the land in question has been distributed half and half to both sides. Each of them seeks the other half also which has been granted to each opposite-party.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant in C.A. 220 of 1979 has contended that Chand Singh having died his L.Rs. Were not brought on record in the High Court at proper time. He has contended that otherwise also the Writ Petition in the High Court had abated and Chand Singh and/or for that matter his L.Rs. Could not have been granted any relief. When told that leave to appeal was not granted to Shamsul Haq appellant with regard to the foregoing questions raised by the learned counsel he could not press the same any further.
10. Learned counsel then reiterated the argument that the High Court was not right in converting the Revision Petition into a Writ Petition at a point of time when the Revision was no more competent.
11. There is no force in this point either. Recently it has been held by this Court in a number of cases that there is no limit and bar on the High Court to convert a revision into a writ petition. This essentially is a question of exercise of discretion.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant also reiterated his argument that Chand Singh had no right of option in refusing to accept a proposal of land made to him in Khata No. 688.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite side replied that the very procedure for making allotment visualised first a proposal and then after its acceptance and/or decision thereon the allotment would be formally confirmed. The proposal made being thus subject to confirmation, the option was available not to accept it. After this reply learned counsel for Shamsul Haq could not advance any further this' procedural point. Learned counsel also raised some technical objections with regard to the proceedings but in the circumstances of this case nothing would turn up on any technical argument being accepted. Substantial justice having been done we do not find any force in CA-220 of 1979.
14. On the announcement of the Order in the other appeal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CA-221 of 1979 could not and in fact did not press it.
15. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.