' Facts of the case out of which this Constitutional petition has arisen are that respondent No,2 Mujib Khan son of Mandoo Khan a refugee from Jaipur State (India) was issued QPR No,1657/820 for 115 PI Units for District Mirpur Khas on 19-9-1959. On the basis of this Q.P.R. He got land allotted at Khata No,42 of Register RL H in Deh No,174 (Tehsil Dagri), District Tharparker on 9-11-1959. This allotment was cancelled in pursuance of paragraph No,7 of the Martial Law Regulation No,84 of 1989 and MR-V No,194/2269/16757/953-A, for 115 PI units, issued by Central Record Office on 27-12- 1966. It appears that no fresh order of allotment of the land in Mirpurkhas was passed in favour of the respondent No,2 in accordance with the provisions of paragraph No,7 of M.L.R. Which reads as under:--- "Fresh allotment and cancellation of pr vious certificates and allotment.---(1) All certificates in Forms QPR-V and URN and certificates showing title to land issued under the original regulation and any allotment of land made on the basis of any such certificate shall stand cancelled and shall be deemed never to have been issued or made.
(2) Fresh orders for the allotment of land shall be made on the basis of entitlement certificates; provided that---
(i) where an allotment order had been issued to any claimant such order may be modified so as to conform to the entitlement certificate and such modified order shall be deemed to be a fresh allotment order made under this paragraph; and
(ii) the fresh allotment order shall, as far as may be, include the land previously allotted to a claimant."
' It also appears that this MR-V was transferred from District Mirpurkhas to District Bhawalnagar, Tehsil Chishtian and against that land in dispute was allotted at Khata No,13 of Register R.L. II, Chak No,15 Gijiani, Tehsil. Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, on 8-3-1969 which measures 333 Kanals and 8 Marlas against 1542 PI Units. It appears that in MR-V instead of digit 115 P.I. Units digit 2 has been superadded and the total number of P.I. Units have been fraudulently shown as 2115 and it is on the basis of this entitlement certificate that the aforementioned property was allotted in the name of respondent No,2 through respondent No,3 who claims himself to be the attorney of respondent No,2. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 have purchased the land in question through registered sale-deed.
Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar got verified the entitlement certificate from the Central Record Office and it transpired that the said certificate was bogus and it was only issued for 115 P.I. Units. Consequently, in exercise of his powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, he cancelled the allotment in question and also directed the registration of criminal case. After the land was cancelled, the disputed area was allotted to the petitioner in this writ petition at Khata No,16 R.L II on 1-11-1971.
' Orders referred to above were challenged by the respondents Nos.5 and 6 in Writ Petition No,713/R of 1972 in this Court which was accepted by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 6-11-1973 and the case was remanded and the following observations were made in the order:--- "It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no proper inquiry was made by the Settlement Authorities concerned as to whether the entitlement certificate issued in favour of Mujib Khan was bogus or not. He further contends that even if the statement of Mr. Razi Haider is admitted to be correct, the land equivalent to 115 units (Mauroosi) cannot be taken away from the petitioners being the vendees of the land originally allotted to Majid Khan. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order. He has merely stated that since the entitlement certificate appears to be bogus, therefore, the allotment as made cannot besustained. I am afraid, in the presence of the facts stated by Mr. Razi Haider on the basis of the relevant record maintained by the Central Record Office; the impugned order cannot be maintained. Moreover, the same has been passed in the absence of the necessary party i,e, the vendees (petitioners)."
' The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner entrusted the cake to the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) in the headquarter office who vide order dated 17-4-1980, accepted the appeal/revision filed by the respondents Nos.5 and 6 and restored the allotment in the name of Mujib Khan respondent No,2 at Khasra No,13 to the extent of 115 P.I. Units. This order has been challenged in this Constitutional petition.
2. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No,2 in the written statement filed in this Writ Petition on 29-9-1992 has conceded that he is holding the allotment in Sindh as against 115 P.I. Units which was his total entitlement and that he has never got his claim transferred to Chishtian nor has he ever secured the allotment in question and as such he has no objection if the writ petition is accepted and therefore the writ petition is liable to be accepted on this short ground alone inasmuch as the allottee having conceded the allotment in question to be bogus, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 who are purchasers have no independent right of hearing and hence cannot object to the acceptance of the writ petition. Learned counsel has further argued that the Register RL II Annexure 'A' relating to the allotment in Sindh clearly shows that the allotment originally made on Q.P.R. In Sindh has been revalidated as after the issuance of M.R. III 2264, dated 8-2-1961, a note thereof has been given on a copy of the R.L. II. Learned counsel, however, has not denied that no fresh order of allotment has been passed in the case in hand by any competent authority and that the entry of MR III referred to above on the copy Annexure `A' is also not signed or initialled by any competent authority. Learned counsel has also conceded that the original allotment against QPR V stood cancelled in pursuance of paragraph 7 of MLR 89. Learned counsel has however, argued that the allotment in Chishtian was never obtained by the respondent No,2 and that the respondent No,3 was never appointed as an attorney for the purposes of allotment or sale of the land and therefore the respondents Nos.5 and 6 have no locus standi to defend the impugned order which is based upon misreading of evidence and misunderstanding of the correct legal position.
' Ch. Muhammad Altaf, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 supports the writ petition and has contended that he has no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition. Muhammad Rafiq Khan and Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have argued that the allotment in question in Sindh stood cancelled and the same has never been re-validated or allotted afresh. M.R. V was transferred to Chishtian in lieu whereof land in question has been allotted. A certified copy of the entry of transfer of the claim MR V No,194/2269/16757/953-A has been produced for perusal in this Court. This copy does support the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Copy of Register RL II Annexure 'A' produced by the petitioner does not show that the allotment cancelled by virtue of paragraph No,7 of MLR 89 was ever re-validated or any fresh order of allotment of the same land was passed in the name of respondent No,2 prior to the transfer of claim. As held in the case of Karam Elahi and others v. Waheeduddin and others PLD 1989 SC Note No,129 reported at page 94 of the PLD 1979 Peshawar part (sic), that allotment made against duly verified claim if its genuineness is not questioned, it cannot be cancelled when the same has been purchased by bona fide purchaser for value. Particularly, when the deed of power-of-attorney have not been successfully challenged by the original allottee. Land having already been sold and purchased by contesting respondents Nos.5 and 6 no importance can be attached to the concession made by the respondent No,2 in the written statement filed on 29-9-1992, particularly, when this writ petition is pending in the Court since 1980. Respondents Nos.5 and 6 who are bona fide purchaser for value being parties to the writ have a right to ask for the dismissal of the writ petition inasmuch as they will ultimately suffer the consequences of adverse decision of the writ petition.
3. I have gone through the impugned order which is based upon lawful material and valid reasoning, no fault can be found therewith. The respondent No,2 being entitled to get allotment to the tune of 115 P.I. Units and the land A in question admittedly being equal to 115 P.I. Units has been validly allowed to remain intact. Merely because once land was allotted in Sindh, which legally stands cancelled will not be a ground for holding that allotment of the land in question is illegal.
' Resultantly, I find no force in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. This parties are left to bear their own costs.