' The facts of the case are that land measuring 21 Kanals 13 Marlas was allotted to Noor Muhammad on 2-8-1960. After his death the same was mutated in the name of his brother Samand Khan and Mst. Naseeban his daughter as legal heiRs, It is stated before me that Samand Khan also purchased the share of Mst. Naseeban.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that respondent No3, 4 and 5 are the heirs of Mst. Naseeban and that they are not necessary parties and their names be struck off and the real controversy is between petitioner Samand Khan and respondent No,2 Fateh Muhammad .
In view of the statement names of respondents Nos,.3, 4 and 5 are struck off from the record.
3. Fateh Muhammad was also claiming to be allottee of the disputed land as J & K Refugee. At the instance of Fateh Muhammad respondent No,2, order dated 2-8-1960 was reviewed on 25th of April, 1962 cancelling the land from the name of Noor Muhammad. An appeal was filed by the present petitioner which was accepted vide order dated 20-11-1962 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Narowal. While accepting the appeal he held that respondent No,2 was J & K refugee, temporary allottee of the land since 18-4-1957 and had a balance claim of 878 Units.
4. On revision the case was remanded by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 28th February, 1963, for decision afresh. After remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) again accepted the appeal of Samand Khan petitioner on 23rd July, 1963. Against this order dated 23rd July, 1963, respondent No,2 Fateh Muhammad filed Revision Petition No, 378/63 which was dismissed on 4th October, 1963. It appears that the matter was again taken up by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 16-4-1965 and he accepted the case of respondent No,2. This order though mentioned in para. 6 of the writ petition is not placed on the record.
' The present petitioner Samand Khan and Mst. Naseeban filed Writ Petition No, 874-R/65 against the order dated 16-4-1965 and the matter was remanded on the ground that Mst. Naseeban was not given an opportunity of being heard.
5. After remand the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 9th March, 1981 restored the disputed allotment in favour of Fateh Muhammad firstly on the ground that he was J and K refugee and the land allotted to him as such was out of compensation pool, secondly his balance claim to the extent of 878 units was pending satisfaction and there was no justification to take away the land in dispute from his name.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues vehemently that the original order of allotment dated 2-8-1960 in favour of Noor Muhammad could not be reviewed after about a year and that in any case the permit of allotment in favour of respondent Fateh Muhammad was already cancelled as is apparent from Rozenamcha dated 18-9-1976.
7. I find that the learned Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 9-3-1981 thrashed out the basic point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In para. 2 of his order he held that protracted litigation took place between the parties and finally the revision petition of Fateh Muhammad was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 16-4-1965. This was the order which was assailed in W.P. No, 874-R of 1965 and the case was remanded by this Court for giving a chance of hearing to Mst. Naseeban. However, the fact still remains that he older dated 2-8-1960 was set aside in litigation between the parties. As to the cancellation of permit the learned Settlement Commissioner did not rely upon the Rozenamcha but considered Fard Taqseem which indicated Fateh Muhammad as allottee of the land in question.
8. The crucial point for decision in this case is whether the land allotted to J & K Refugee could be cancelled for some other claim-holder. By this time it is a settled proposition of law that this cannot be done. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ahmad Khan and another (PLD 1991 SC 391) where it has been held that the land transferred to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for purpose of maintenance cannot be cancelled the same having become the property of Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in 1960 and excluded from the compensation pool.
' In view of above the learned Settlement Commissioner rightly passed the impugned order dated 9th March, 1981 restoring the allotment in favour of respondent No,2. This writ petition has no merit which is dismissed with no order as to costs.