' Necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that the land measuring 176 Kanals situated in village Berianwala, Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal, was cancelled from the name of the petitioner by the Border Area Committee vide ex parte order dated 28-1-1979 observing that during the course of checking of allotments of Tehsil Depalpur it came to notice that Havaldar Muhammad Younas was allotted on 21-12-1969 the land in dispute, but on reference made to the GHQ with regard to the genuineness of this allottee, the GHQ reported that Hay. Muhammad Younas was not the recommendee of the GHQ. On the basis of this alleged report the order of cancellation and resumption of the allotment was passed. This led to the filing of present Constitution petition.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a bona fide army personnel and that the Border Area Committee would not have proceeded to make the allotment had the petitioner been not the recommendee of the GHQ. The factum of allotment stands admitted in the impugned order. The petitioner having paid the price of the land and the proprietary rights having been conferred, the order of cancellation and resumption of the land passed by the Border Area Committee, it is without jurisdiction.
3. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Khan, learned Legal Advisor for Border Area Committee submitted that the allotment in the name of the petitioner of the land in dispute is not borne out from the record available with the Border Area Committee and that this allotment also is not to be found in the original RLB Register. He adds that the attested copy of the allotment order Annexure `A' statedly issued by the Border Area Committee is an unusual document as no such allotment order was ever issued to the allottees. He contended further that payment of price and conferment of proprietary rights are of no legal value.
4. The factum of possession of the land in dispute of the petitioner through tenants as well as the factum of payment of the transfer price is admitted. The conferment of proprietary rights stands admitted in the statement of the Patwari recorded by the Border Area Committee itself. Moreover, in the impugned order the Border Area Committee has itself noted that the land in dispute was allotted on 21-12-1969 in the name of Hay. Muhammad Younas. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the Border Area Committee to assert during arguments that the allotment of the land in dispute was not made in the name of the petitioner. The Register RLB being relied upon has been stitched afresh. There are other holes still visible in the said register which show that it has been restitched. For both these reasons it cannot be asserted that the allotment was never made in the name of the petitioner. Even if the doubt cast no allotment order Annexure `A' is real, still irregularity of official acts is to be presumed. The Border Area Committee would not have made the allotment had the petitioner been not recommended of the GHQ. The order of the GHQ referred to in the impugned order has also not been produced before me despite the fact that the direction in this respect was made as early as on 18-2-1980 and for that purpose various adjournments were also obtained in the year 1992.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner having been in possession of the land for the last so many years and having paid the price and proprietary rights having been granted, it will be too inequitable and unjust to disturb him at this late stage when he is admittedly an army personnel. The land within the border area is to be allotted to ex-servicemen. The doubts cast on one count or the other should not be made basis to displace the petitioner who is admittedly an ex-serviceman and is otherwise not an undesirable person.
6. For all the above reasons, the order dated 28-1-1979 of the Border Area Committee is quashed.
The petition thus succeeds and is accepted. The parties are left to bear their own costs.