1. ' Petitioners through this Constitutional petition have assailed the order dated 30-4-1978 passed by EASO, Sialkot, with the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) whereby land measuring 19 Kanals, 11 Marlas in Khasra Nos,103, 418 and 420 at Village Rampura, Tehsil Narowal,District Sialkot, was allotted to Fatch Muhammad respondent No,1 on temporary basis.
2. ' Brief facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that Fateh Muhammad respondent No,1 a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, was allotted land on temporary basis in Village Jodhala, Tehsil Pasroor. Subsequently, on the plea that his earlier allotted land had been confirmed to some body else, he was allotted land in Village Ratta, Tehsil Narowal on 17-11-1977. He once again succeeded in securing allotment of land measuring 27 Kanals, 11 Marlas in Village Rampura, Tehsil Narowal and another piece of land measuring 103 Kanals, 10 Marlas in Village Vanjal, Tehsil Narowal, on temporary basis by an order passed by EASO, Sialkot with the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), through his order dated 30-4-1978 (Annex-A). Out of the aforesaid land so allotted at Village Rampura the petitioners claim to be in cultivating possession of land measuring 19 Kanals, 11 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos, 103, 418 and 420 for the last more than 20 yeaRs, ' It is argued that the petitioners are entitled to the disputed land under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 as they satisfy all the conditions/requirements for allotment and the impugned action has been taken in an arbitrary manner behind their back. Further contended that there was no proceedings pending immediately before the repeal of the law and EASO respondent No,2, had no jurisdiction to allot land to respondent Fateh Muhammad through the impugned order.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 has supported the impugned order and has stated that the respondent being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, his temporary allotment cannot be interfered with in view of instructions issued on 14-9-1974 by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (J&K) Rawalpindi, copy of which was addressed to all concerned. It has further been stated that the petitioners have got no right whatsoever as even according to Khasra Girdawari appended with this petition their possession hardly exits from the period 1976 onward as such they do not qualify the requirements of four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 required under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 has challenged the locus standi of the petitioners on the ground that the land had wrongly been entered under the possession of Central Government. He has further stated that the disputed land is also subject of litigation in the consolidation proceedings where in a revision filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioners and others, the Additional Commissioner (C) had noticed this bungling and had remanded the case to A.D.C.(C), Sialkot, through his order dated 14-6-1978. The respondent being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, his temporary allotment cannot be interfered with in view of instructions issued on 14-9-1974 by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (J&K), Rawalpindi, copy of which was addressed to all concerned. It has further been stated that the petitioners have got no right whatsoever as even according to Khasra Girdawari appended with this petition their possession hardly exists from the period 1976 onward as such they do not qualify the requirements of four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 required under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 has challenged the locus standi of the petitioners on the ground that the land had wrongly been entered under the possession of Central Government. He has further stated that the disputed land is also subject of litigation in the consolidation proceedings where in a revision filed by respondent No,3 against the petitioners and others, the Additional Commissioner (C) had noticed this bungling and had remanded the case to A.D.C. (C), Sialkot, through his order dated 14-6-1978.
4. ' I have considered the contentions and have perused the documents appended with the petition.
5. From the contents of the impugned order it is reflected that successive allotments have been made one after the other favouring respondent Fateh Muhammad. The impugned allotment was made simply on his application that there was some litigation respecting his earlier alternative allotment. On this basis alone he was favoured with this present impugned allotment. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed by ESO/Addl. Settlement Commissioner after repeal of Settlement Laws when no proceedings were pending before him. All this shows that respondent No,2 had simply doled out this property to Fateh Muhammad respondent in an arbitrary manner without any basis through a slip shod-order. The right of the petitioners to the disputed property was also not considered at all. The reliance . Of respondent No,1 on the instructions issued on 14-9-1974 is not apt as the same is applicable to the transfer of temporary allotment of land from the name of original allottee of Jammu and Kashmir to otheRs, I have also noticed that the petitioners did not bring sufficient evidence on record to establish their continuous possession for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973. I do not want to dilate much upon this issue as this exercise may prejudice their case. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is accepted and order dated 30-4-1978 passed by EASO with the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner
(Land) is hereby set aside as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
6. The case is remitted to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation), who shall either himself or through some Notified Officer decide it by giving the interested parties an opportunity of hearing. In case none of the parties are held entitled to the disputed property, the same shall be disposed of through public auction, as required under the law. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.