' Facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Rahim Bakhsh was allotted land measuring 51 Kanals 8 Marlas in village Gaga Sarai, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur as against Khata No. 290 on 2- 10-1955. This was against 221 units. He was again confirmed land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas on 16th April, 1960 on Khata No. 514 of the same place. This was to the extent of 81 units. As such the claimant obtained the aforementioned land as against his total units of 302.
2. A Mukhbari application was filed by respondent No. 1 Munshi Khan who has since died and his legal heirs are represented by Mr. Muhammad Rafique Khan, Advocate. According to the informer the original claimant obtained more land than his entitlement. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore held that the entitlement of the petitioner comes to 221 units and he could not obtain land as against 302 units.
Thus land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas on Khata No. 514 was cancelled for which 81 units were calculated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it is simple case of miscalculation and the land to the extent of 16 Kanals and 8 Marlas could not have been cancelled. It is further argued by him that there is no finding by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) that the excess land of 16 Kanals 8 Marlas was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation or that the petitioners were privy to any such contract.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners knew their entitlement to the extent of 221 units and they could not be allotted more than this namely 302 units. According to him classification of the land has been changed. The learned counsel relies upon Chotu v. Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore and 6 others 1978 SCM R 350 where according to him a claimant leaves behind in India only about 3 Bighas of land but inadvertently his claim was verified by the Central Record Office for about 89 Kanals. According to him the fraud in this case is apparent. The facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguished from the present one. In the present case the entitlement of the petitioners was verified for the same amount of land which Rahim Bakhsh left on the other side of the border. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present is a case of miscalculation. The petitioners are admittedly in possession of the land for more than 35 years and it would be highly unjust to dislocate them for no fault of theirs.
' In view of the above the impugned order dated 3-6-1981 of respondent A No. 2 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' The writ petition is accepted without any order as to costs.