' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances:
1. Claim of Mangal Khan was verified. Mutation of his inheritance No,20 was sanctioned on 30-5- 1958. Allotment was proposed on 30-8-1958. Mukhbari application was filed. The Deputy Commissioner, possessed of jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, found the matter in order on 15-11-1958. Allotment was confirmed on 10-2-1959. On the motion of the Enforcement Staff, the allotment was resumed by Martial Law Authority but restored on the order of the Assistant Sub- Martial Law Administrator dated 29-10-1961 on 10-11-1961. Nearly thirteen years later on 22-6-1974 just before the repeal of the law on 30-6-1974, an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 against Mst. Sufaidi appellant No,1 that original allottee had not migrated. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur cancelled the allotment vide order dated 16-5-1975. This was challenged through Writ Petition No,10 of 1977 which was allowed on 15-2-1978 and the case was remanded. Again it resulted in cancellation of the allotment. The appellants filed Writ Petition No, 413-R of 1987 which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench at Bahawalpur vide order dated 17-6-1987. The appellants were granted leave to appeal as to whether in the circumstances fresh Mukhbari application could be entertained on 22-6-1974.
2. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants has contended that mutation was sanctioned and allotment proposed in 1958. Mukhbari application was filed which the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, possessed powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dismissed vide order dated 15-12-1958. Allotment was confirmed on 10-2-1959. There was no justification for the Mukhbari application on 22-6-1974, just before the repeal of the law on 30-6-1974. He next submitted that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner based his order on no valid evidence and upheld an earlier of his predecessor which had been declared to be without lawful authorities.
3. The Advocate-on-Record for the respondents has stated that he had been informing the counsel one after the other but has received no instructions.
4. After hearing and perusing the record, it appears that the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17-9-1981 does not adjudicate anything. It fmds the earlier order of the predecessor to be good, in spite of the fact that stood set aside. Proceedings "appear to suffer from a mysterious haste" as observed by a learned Judge of the High Court in the first instance.
Public authorities passed the orders and allotment confirmed on 10-2-1959. People are entitled to be secure in their rights. Everything cannot be set at naught on a Mukhbari application filed fifteen years later.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.