1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J---This judgment will dispose of the above-mentioned two appeals as the question involved in them is common and both these matters were disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the appellants in the above mentioned two appeals are bona fide purchasers of land for consideration. This land was allotted to one Muhammad Akbar, a claimant displaced person who had a claim form bearing No, 106 on 2-4-1965. After the land was permanently confirmed by the Settlement Authorities in his favour he alienated small bits of it, to various persons through sale, gift and it has also devolved on some of the appellants through inheritance.
3. ' However, a cloud was cast on their title as one Esa son of Mehr Din submitted a Mukhbari application alleging that Akbar Khan's allotment was a bogus allotment and ultimately this plea was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Jauharabad entailing cancellation of the land from the names of the appellants vide order dated 20-11-1976.
4. The writ petition filed in the High Court challenging this order was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Hence these appeals by leave of this Court.
5. ' The case of the appellants is that the claim of Muhammad Akbar was a genuine one and the allotment was duly made in his favour on his claim form bearing No,106. The confusion has arisen on account of the circumstance that on account of some mistake it was found that the allotment was obtained in pursuance of a Claim Form No, 1069 while no such allotment existed against the said claim form. This fact stands substantiated by the report of the Central Record Office dated 14- 1-1977. This report shows that the verified claim of Muhammad Akbar was genuine and obtained against Claim Form No,106. It was clarified that earlier the number of the claim form had been inadvertently shown as 1061 instead of 106. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had cancelled the allotment in favour of Muhammad Akbar on the basis of a copy produced by the informant from the Central Record Office containing this mistake and the informant taking advantage of this mistake got the allotment declared as bogus. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had not carefully gone into the matter. Neither any official of the Central Record Office was produced to substantiate the allegation of the informant nor was the appellants summoned by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to appear before him before passing the impugned order dated 20-11-1976. Hence, the correct facts of the case never came before him.
6. ' No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest these appeals.
7. We are, after hearing learned counsel for the appellants, and perusing the record, inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It appears to us that the Additional Settlement Comissioner was indeed under a misconception with regard to the nature of the verification of Muhammad Akbar's entitlement because no finding in regard to his claim having been settled anywhere else has been noticed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner nor has he carefully examined any of the surrounding facts. He merely took note of the objection of the informant and made no proper enquiry to verify the correct position. If he had done so he would have found that the claim of Muhammad Akbar on Claim Form No, 106 A had, in fact, been properly verified.
8. ' We would, therefore, allow both these appeals, set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20-11-1976 whereby he cancelled the allotment made in favour of the predecessor-in interest of the appellants namely Muhammad Akbar, as also the judgment of the High Court dated 8-3-1989 refusing to set-aside the aforesaid erroneous order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
9. ' The upshot is that these appeals succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. Since no one has appeared to oppose them, there shall be no order as to costs.