The petitioners claim to be the vendees from allottee respondent No.5 of an area measuring 928 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in Village Mandiala Waraich, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. This allotment was cancelled by order dated 10-5-1978 of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the same was bogus.
2. Petitioners filed W.P. No. 921-R/78 and by order dated 18-11-1985 this Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the case on an agreed position by the parties that the genuineness of the allotment will be considered by the Settlement Commissioner. After remand the Additional Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala vide his order dated 2-1-1986 maintained the cancellation and this order is impugned in the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of this Court earlier passed has not been complied with and the case has been decided arbitrarily without properly examining the R.L. II of the original allottee. Admittedly R.L. II was in possession of the Anti-Corruption Department in connection with some cases and the learned Settlement Commissioner summoned the Inspector Anti-Corruption who was in possession of the said RL-II and after perusing the same decided the case without affording opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the Police Inspector.
4. I have gone through the impugned order dated 2-1-1986 and am of the opinion that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is in a cursory manner and this cannot be said to be the compliance of the order of this Court dated 18-11-1985. The learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 informers in this case, and the learned counsel for the petitioners have agreed that the case be remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law.
In view of above the impugned order dated 2-1-1986 of the chief Settlement Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded to him/notified officer for fresh decision after hearing all the parties in the case including respondent No. 6 Mr. Javed Nisar who claims to be the subsequent purchaser of the property and this shall be done within 3 months.