' This Constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 28-9-1977 of the Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling the excess land to the extent of 168 units from the name of original allottee Naseer-ul-Hassan in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that claimant Naseer-ul-Hassan was allotted rural as well as urban land in different villages, the detail of which is reproduced on page 2 of the impugned order.
The dispute in this case is relatable to the allotment made to the allottee in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala. Learned Chief Settlement Commissioner extensively dealt with the question of excess allotment and concluded that the allottee was allotted land in Aimanabad, Tehsil Gujranwala to the extent of 455 units on 6-4-1963 but he was entitled to urban allotment to the extent of 287 units and in this way excess allotment to the extent of 168 units was cancelled. While doing so, he observed as follow:--- "This area is a garden and was sold to Mst. Kaniz Fatima (present petitioner), I, therefore, in exercising my powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, now read with section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, do hereby order for the cancellation of 168 units from the allotment of Naseer-ul-Hassan at Khatas Nos.17 and 82 of R.L.-II of Aimanabad. As the area is garden and is in possession of the vendees, 1, therefore, allow her to apply to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the purchase of the area of 168 units within two months from the date of judgment."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-vendee vehemently submits that the allottee was not in possession of any excess area of 168 units and, therefore, the cancellation was not justified in law. He has produced before me a photostat copy of MR-5 in support of his contention. I am of the opinion that this contention of learned counsel has no substance. The issue regarding excess area cannot be decided on the basis of a photostat copy which was not produced before Chief Settlement Commissioner. Petitioner was participating in the cancellation proceedings and this point was not raised as is being done now. In any case learned Chief Settlement Commissioner has already allowed the petitioner to purchase excess area of 168 units and this is a fair and just order and no exception can be made to this. Petitioner can apply to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as already directed, and no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order.
' In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.