' Petitioner Muhammad son of Nawazish Ali has filed this writ petition against the order dated 29-3- 1981 of Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab whereby he cancelled the land in two villages Gondlianwala and Mari Bhindran Tehsil and District Gujranwala at Khata Nos.138 and 279 respectively. While cancelling the land the Settlement Authority observed that "during the proceedings the respondent has not been able to justify the allotments obtained by him (petitioner). His entitlement is not proved from the perusal of the different documLnts as genuine and having been made in accordance with law. It also seems that conditions mandatory to the allotment of such lands were also violated while making these allotments". This was the consideration on the basis of which the allotment in both the villages was cancelled.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the scrutiny of the allotment of the petitioner having already been done thrice there was no legal justification for the Settlement Commissioner to have been passed the impugned order dated 29th March, 1981. He argues that on 2nd of October, 1966 the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) scrutinised the allotment and the excess area was withdrawn. Certified copy of this order is . also placed on record. Today he has placed certified copies of two orders dated 27-4-1965 and 13-11-1976 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala and Additional Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala to the effect that Mukhbari application against the present writ petitioner was dismissed in respect of the disputed land.
3. I find that the allotment of the petitioner was scrutinized thrice- and it is now for the fourth time that the impugned order dated 29th March, 1981 has been passed. From the very close scrutiny of the impugned order it transpires that the Settlement Authority did not give its findings as to the fraud and misrepresentation played by the petitioner in default of which the disputed land could not have been cancelled. The order cancelling the allotment is vague, uncertain and sketchy. It was the duty of the learned Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to have recorded a positive finding warranting the cancellation of the allotment which has not been done in the present case.
' In view of above the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 29-3-1981 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
' The parties to bear their own costs.