' Petitioner, Amir Khan, Sepoy (retired soldier) was allotted a piece of agricultural land measuring 243 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in Kasur Khas under the ordeRs, of General HeadquarteRs, vide Memo. No,7778/451/WR-I dated 19-6-1971. Possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioner for cultivation purposes. Case of the petitioner is that he deposited a sum of Rs,387 in the Government Treasury on 27-5-1972 towards the payment of price and another sum of Rs,10 was deposited by him vide Annexures 'C' and `D'. It is contended that the petitioner is a regular allottee of the land and that it was never cancelled by the competent Authority, namely, General Headquarters from his name. However, in the meantime, land measuring 292 Kanals and 9 Marlas was allotted in the name of contesting respondent No,1 to make up the deficiency in his allotment of land. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner when he was deprived of some portion of his land. Attention of the Court has been drawn to various ordeRs, from the record which indicate beyond doubt that no notice was ever sent to the petitioner on his correct address to appear and defend his case. It appeaRs, that on the basis of doubtful proceedings, the entire land was cancelled from the name of the petitioner. A statement has been made by contesting respondent No,I that only a portion of the land of the petitioner has been given to him for making up deficiency in his allotment. He states that he is in cultivating possession of the land and that he has improved upon the quality of the land by making huge investment of money and labour.
2. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Khan, learned counsel for the Border Area Committee has appeared with original record and submits that the petitioner did not reside within the border belt as required by the scheme and as such was not at all entitled to any allotment of land.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record with care. The admitted position which emerges from discussion of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was A regular allottee of the land in question and that no notice was ever issued to him while depriving him of his allotment. This being so. The cancellation of allotment is void ab initio on the very face of the record. At the same time,there is no fault on the part of contesting respondent inasmuch as he was given a portion of the land in question to make up deficiency in his allotment of land. Fault definitely lies on the Authorities who allotted the land in dispute to a genuine claimant. He is in possession of the land and that he has brought the uncultivated land under plough with investment of huge amount of money and labour. He, therefore, cannot be deprived of the land at this late stage. The contesting respondent states at Bar that he has no objection if the remaining land measuring 100 Kanals is restored to the petitioner. He further says that petitioner's deficiency may also be made up by giving him more land from the available State land. He states that sufficient land is still available.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, instead of remanding the matter, a direction is issued to respondent Border Area Committee to allot more land to the petitioner with a view to make up deficiency in his allotment within next three months without fail. The remaining land in question shall automatically stand restored to him. A commitment has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that balance price of the land shall be paid by the petitioner as early as possible. With the above adjustment, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Compliance report shall be submitted by the respondent. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Office to General HeadquarteRs, as well as Border Area Committee for its compliance.