' This judgment shall dispose of W.P. No,709-R of 1981 and W.P. No,391-R of 1983 as similar questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No,3 Qazi Khawaja Bahauddin was allotted land in three villages Malowal, Sarianwala and Muradey Kalan, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura. A Mukhbari application was filed under sections 10 and 11 and vide order, dated 17th November, 1976 the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore cancelled the land from the name of the original allottees in the following manner:--
(a) Malowal 695 P.I. Units.
(b) Sarianwala 1,312 P.I. Units.
(c) Muradey Kalan 2,619 P.I. Units.
' The learned Settlement Authority came to the conclusion that the entitlement of the allottee was 7,862 P.I. Units whereas he has been allotted land to the extent of 12,488 P.1. Units. In this way excess allotment has been made to the extent of 4,626 P.I. Units.
2. A report in this caw called for has been received and in para. 11 of the same it is stated by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Writs) 11, Egerton Road, Lahore that the excess land of the original allottee is 2,473 P.I. Units and not 4,626 P.I. Units. On 14th September, 1992 parties were directed to assist me in this case as to whether the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 17th November, 1976, has to be relied upon or the report submitted to this Court by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the question of excess entitlement. Further on the request of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department I sent for the concerned officials of the Settlement Department to appear to make the correct calculation as to the excess land to original claimant.
On the first question the parties are not prepared. On the second question Muhammad Ishaque, Patwari Central Record Room was present on the last date of hearing but his presence was futile because he did not bring the relevant record.
In view of the above situation particularly keeping in view the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner I accept both the writ petitions and declare the impugned order dated 17th November, 1976 to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and remand the cases to the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner to entrust these cases to a Notified Officer for deciding the same a resh. All the parties will appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and explain their to their entitlment. Case remanded.