' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos,321-R of 1981, 358-R of 1981, 426-R of 1981 and 436-R of 1981 filed against the impugned order dated 30-3-1981 by which the Chief Settlement Commissioner has cancelled the land from the names of Mahmood Ahmad, Maqsood Ahmad, and Mehboob Ahmad respondents. The petitioners in all the writ petitions claim to be the bona fide purchasers of land in question.
2. On Mukhbari applications filed by Muhammad Shafi, etc., under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 the Settlement Commissioner cancelled the following land from the names of the allottees:-- "(1) Chak No, 8/GB Tehsil Nankana. 217 Kanals 15 Marlas
(2) Churkana, Tehsil Sheikhupura 471 Kanals 17 Marlas
(3) Champel, Tehsil Sheikhupura 158 Kanals 6 Marlas.
(4) Chak No,8, Tehsil Sheikhupura 1134 Kanals 13 Marlas.
(5) Village Khung, Tehsil Sheikhupura 101 Kanals 10 Marlas
3. It is submitted by Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, learned counsel for the Settlement Department that the impugned order is defective inasmuch as it does not determine, firstly, the correct entitlement of the allottees-claimants and, secondly, how much area has been obtained by them by fraud and misrepresentation and without determining this the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have cancelled the entire allotment from the names of the allottees. He has drawn my intention to the following finding in the impugned order:-- "No body has even bothered to verify whether the respondents had any claim of their own or not. I am, therefore, quite convinced that the allotments secured by the allottees in all the above allotments mentioned at S. Nos,1 to 5 were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts."
4. It is also pointed out that the allegations against the allottees were that they obtained the allotment in excess of their entitlement and this was present in the mind of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as is evident from para. 2 of the impugned order. On these basis it is prayed that the case may be remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioners also agree with the learned counsel for the Settlement Department.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that there is a considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department.
' In view of above all the writ petitions are accepted and the same are remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Board of Revenue, Punjab for entrusting it to the concerned notified officer for decision afresh who will determine the correct entitlement of the allottees and the excess area obtained by them and then pass order in accordance with law after hearing all the relevant parties.
' It is directed that these matters shall be decided by the notified officer within six months.