1. ' This writ petition arose out of a dispute relating to transfer of a non-Muslim evacuee owned Plot No, 119-D, Model Town, Lahore. It measured 6 Kanals. Its disposal was put to auction on 19-4-1960.
2. Petitioners purchased it in auction. Later, auction was confirmed in their favour. Petitioners paid the purchase price of the plot. Provisional Transfer Order in respect of it was isused in the name of the petitioners on 19-5-1965, and, PTD on 14-3-1968. Petitioners gained actual possession of the plot at the spot. On a part of it, permanent constructions were made by them. Out of area comprised in the aforesaid plot, petitioners sold two Kanals to Khawaja Abdul Hameed on 10-6-1985. Latter sold the areas purchased by him to Muhammad Iqbal on 10-7-1986. Muhammad Iqbal constructed a bungalow on the plot purchased by him. He sold the abovesaid piece of land with constructions on it to Mst. Rubi Alvi on 4-7-1987. She died on 18-12-1988. Applicants in C.M. No, 2853 of 1989 were her successors-in-interest.
3. ' On 26-4-1974, respondents Nos, 2 and 3, who are closely related inter se, filed a Mukhbari application against one Muhammad Khalid claiming that the P.T.D. In respect of Plot No, 119-D issued in his favour on 25-9-1968 was a fake and bogus transaction. Additional Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) cancelled the PTD issued in favour of Muhammad Khalid on 18-9-1977 and adjusted the area covered by plot in favour of the applicants of the Mukhbari application in lieu of their verified claim. Allotment was given effect to in revenue records. Initially, petitioners brought a civil suit for perpetual injunction against the Settlement Authority in respect of the impugned order. Later, suit was withdrawn and a writ petition was filed in this Court.
4. ' Two points have been urged. First point was that the writ petitioners were not associated with and heard in the proceedings culminating in the impugned order, and, second that Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) was denuded of jurisdiction to deal with the transfer of urban land, in favour of the writ petitioneRs, ' It was common ground that neither the petitioners were parties to the Mukhbari application filed by respondents Nos,2 and 3, nor the PTD in respect of Plot No, 119-D issued in their favour was subjected to a dispute in it. Dispute related to transfer of plot in favour of Muhammad Khalid alone and it was his PTD that was cancelled in the proceedings taken under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, since repealed. Transfer of the plot to the petitioners and PTD, in their favour was neither touched nor interfered with in the impugned order. It was agreed that by virtue of the impugned order, ownership of the plot by the petitioners could not be clouded. Their transfer of the plot was intact and impugned order of Additional Settlement Commissioner could not reach or affect it. It could not be gainsaid that on the strength of existing records and the impugned order, petitioners' title to the plot could not be doubted, disturbed or interfered with. To that extent, therefore, writ petition is bound to succeed and it is declared that the impugned order of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) shall not affect the title of the petitioners to the Plot No, 119-D, transferred to them in auction proceedings. In view of aforesaid declaration, applicants in C.M. No, 2853 of 1989 need not be formally added as parties to the writ petition because their derivative rights in respect of the property purchased by their predecessor are amply protected. But for the disturbance of respondents Nos,2 and 3 from the land allotted to them under the impugned order, above declaration should have ended the matter here. In law and equity, respondents Nos,2 and 3, in the event of disturbance, are entitled to be restitution to an equivalent area of available land for adjustment of their units consumed towards the transfer of the land in dispute. For this purpose, the matter is being remitted to learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing Punjab), Lahore, for reconsideration and decision afresh. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of on the above lines. There shall be no order as to its costs in this Court.