This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1103-R, 1050-R, 1104-R, 1105-R of 1973 and Writ Petitions Nos. 364-8, 606, 154-8, 168-R,180---R, 183-R, 292-R, 293-R, 294-.R, 326-R and 327-R of 1986 challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 Settlement Commissioner (Lands) under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act in respect of the disputed land.
2. Briefly stated, forest department respondent No. 2 filed applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner
(Land) with Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of the disputed land on grounds mentioned in the application dated 21-1-1977. The application was heard and disposed of by order dated 24-3-1971 of the A.D.C. (G)/Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot holding that the land in dispute cannot be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Act. The operative part of the order is as hereunder:- "In view of the letter of the Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 14-7-1965, referred to above, which further reveals that the allotments of the lands, already made, which are in possession of the Forest Department, could be cancelled in revision by the Settlement Commissioner (L) concerned under the relevant provisions of Land Settlement Act, the allotments already made of such lands cannot be cancelled under the provisions of section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and hence, in my view, these petitions cannot proceed. In the circumstances, these cases are submitted to the worthy Settlement Commissioner for such necessary action as he may deem fit, in case he feels inclined to treat these applications as revisions to be disposed of in the light of Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner's instructions contained in letter No. 3622-65/2777-R(L) dated 14-7-1965 "
3.Pursuant to the aforementioned order dated 24-3-1971 the cases were taken up and by order dated 15-12-1973 the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner disagreed with the aforementioned finding and concluded that the matter can proceed under sections 10 and 11. It was further observed that it was for the Court to determine if the allotments are bogus and if these have been secured by fraud and false representation.
4. The petitioners filed writ petition in 1973 questioning the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and the same were admitted on 20-12-1973 on the ground that order dated 24-3-1971 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner attained finality and no appeal or revision has been filed against it within the prescribed period of time. Thereafter other petitioners also filed writ petitions in 1986 challenging the cancellation of allotments by the Summary Military Court on 4-2-1985. In both sets of petitions the substantial question of law has arisen as to whether or not the land could be cancelled for the benefit of the Forest Department.
5. Several grounds have been taken in the application filed by the Forest Department with emphasis that the allotments in favour of the petitioners were contrary to the decision of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, vide memo dated 27-2-1965 addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and other Deputy Commissioners under which evacuee land in possession of the Forest Department whether notified or unnotified should have not been allotted against claims under the provisions of, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have been heard as also the learned counsel for the Settlement Department and Mr. Niaz Ali Shah, Additional Advocate-General Punjab. It is a common ground that the Forest Department were claiming the disputed land on the basis of a directive dated 27-2-1965 issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner West Pakistan, Lahore which was the subject-matter of the earlier litigation in the High Court and finally the case went up before the Supreme Court and the same is decided in Civil Appeal No. 388 of 1988 and other Civil Appeals and the judgment is reported in (1991 SCM R 1426) Province of Punjab v.
Muhammad Mahmood Shah and others. The earlier decision of the High Court disentitling the Forest Department to claim land on the basis of the aforementioned notification was set aside and the case remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held in para. 12 of the judgment that "in view of our discussion above the allotments finalised before 27-2-1965 hold good. Those made after were in violation of the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and cannot, therefore, be sustained." The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have agreed that in view of the aforementioned decision the matter may be remanded for fresh decision.
In view of the statement of the learned counsel and the aforementioned decision the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Authority are set aside and the cases are remanded to the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for entrusting these to a notified officer to hold enquiry and decide the same in accordance with law. The notified officer shall examine each case in view of the law laid down by the A Supreme Court and will maintain only those allotments finalised before 27 February, 1965. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.