' This Constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 4th March, 1971 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner maintaining the cancellation of allotment of Khasra Nos.112/118/1/2, 758/82/1 and 759/82/2. The impugned order, dated 4th March, 1971 was passed in Revision Petition No,142 of 1968. Similar is the case as to Khasra Nos.83 and 103 cancelled in Revision Petition No,144 of 1968. Although the orders have been passed differently by the Settlement Commissioner but these are of the same dated 4-3-1971.
2. The petitioner Wajid All has filed this Constitutional petition mainly on the ground that the disputed land was purchased by him from Mst. Barkat Bibi respondent No,4 and the same could not be cancelled by A.C.O. Vide his order dated 30-10-1963 Annexure 'A' to this writ petition. Against this order Wajid All filed an appeal which was dismissed on 19-7-1965 and revision petition against this order was dismissed on 4-10-1967 by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division.
3. It appears that the case was taken up by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujranwala despite order dated 4-10-1967 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division.
However, the land in question was restored by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 23-9-1968 holding as hereunder: --- "I have considered the arguments and examined the records. The proposed allotments in favour of Walayat Shah son of Faqir Shah and Walayat Shah son of Feroze Shah are not signed and that the field numbers in the allotment of Muhammad Akbar are tampered ones, and as such these allotments are forged allotments and have got no value in the eyes of law. I, therefore, accept the appeal and restore the allotment."
4. A revision petition against the aforesaid order dated 23-9-1968 was filed by the respondents and the disputed land was cancelled by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide two orders dated 4-3-1971 which are impugned in this writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the disputed land was once cancelled from the name of the petitioner Wajid All but the same has been restored vide order dated 7-3-1993 of this Court in W.P. No,217 of 1987. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents were not made party in the aforementioned Writ Petition No,217-R of 1987 and, therefore, the order passed in favour of the petitioner is not binding on the respondents. It is secondly contended that the respondents are J & K refugees and the disputed land could not have been taken away from them. Dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is correct that the disputed land was restored by order dated 7-3-1993 in W.P. No,217-k of 1987. Brief facts of that writ petition are that disputed land was allotted to one Imdad Khan and on Mukhbri application against him the same was cancelled by orders dated 26-12-1969 and 31-10-1972. Some of the vendees affected by the aforementioned two orders filed Writ Petition No,482-R of 1974 against the order dated 31-10-1972 cancelling the land on Mukhbri application and the case was remanded by this Court on 28-6-1978 for fresh decision. In post-remand proceedings the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 23-6-1987 maintained the earlier cancellation of the allotment including the disputed land from the name of Imdad/allottee including mutation No,433 which concerns the present petitioner and on the basis of which the land was alleged to have been sold in his favour. It was observed in the order dated 7-3-1993 as to why the present petitioner did not take any steps against the order dated 31-10-1972 whereby his land was cancelled.
6. The petitioner, however, filed Writ Petition No,217-R of 1987 against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 23-6-1987 passed in pursuance of the order dated 28-6-1978 of this Court in W.P. No,482-R of 1974 and report was called for and the same was reproduced in the earlier order and the same is as hereunder:--- "The claimant was entitled to retain the area allotted to him to the extent of 298 units but he obtained excess allotment and sold it vide Mutations Nos.433, 434, 435 and 436. Wajid Ali, petitioner being the first purchaser (Mutation No,433) measuring land 23 Kanals 18 Marlas equal to 120 units was declared owner according to the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/A.S.C.
With powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, passed on 31-10-1972. But my learned predecessor Khawaja Abdul Rashid cancelled the whole land of Imdad Ali, claimant vide his order dated 23-6- 1987 including the land purchased by Wajid Ali, petitioner, vide Mutation No,433."
' It was observed that the land purchased by the petitioner vide mutation No,433 measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas was protected under order dated 31-10-1972 and that the same could not be cancelled on 23-6-1987. As this land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas was not allotted to the informers the writ petition was accepted and the land measuring 23 Kanals 18 Marlas was kept intact in favour of the petitioner.
An important question, therefore, has arisen as to what is the effect of the order dated 7-3-1993 passed in W.P. No,217-R of 1987 in favour of the petitioner. I have examined the record of W.P. No,217- R of 1987 and find that the respondents in the present writ petition who are claiming the restoration of their allotment as J&K Refugees, were not made a party in earlier Writ Petition No,217-R of 1987 and, therefore, the order cannot be made effective as against them in case they have any right to the disputed allotment.
7. Against the orders dated 4-3-1971 of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner impugned in the present Writ Petition No,359-R/71, it is amply demonstrated that the disputed land was allotted to the respondents as J & K Refugees from 1957 and that the same could not be allotted to one Imdad and finally could not be sold in favour of the petitioner either by Imdad or by respondent No,4 Mst. Barkat Bibi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the findings of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner made in the two orders dated 4-3-1971 as to allotment of land in 1957 in the name of the respondents as J & K Refugees. The respondents, therefore, were necessary party in the aforementioned Writ Petition No,217 filed in 1987. In the present writ petition the impugned order dated 4-3-1971 was assailed while the earlier writ petition was filed in 1987 and the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts and did not disclose that they had also filed W.P. No,359-R of 1971 and that the same was pending disposal. If the petitioner had brought this material fact to the notice of this Court in W.P. No,217-R of 1987 there was no legal justification whatsoever to accept Writ Petition No,217-R of 1987 on 7-3-1993. For this reason, as well, the petitioner cannot be benefited of the order dated 7-3-1993 passed in W.P. 217-R/87, in which only the Additional Settlement Commissioner Consolidation with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner was made a party whose order dated 23-6-1987 was impugned in that writ petition.
8. The learned Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner in the impugned order dated 4-3-1971 has extensively dealt with the matter and come to a positive conclusion that the land in question was allotted to the J&K Refugees in 1957 and this could not be taken away from them. It is settled law as laid down in Mst. Sakina Ribi and another v. Mamla and 2 others PLD 1977 Lah. 202; Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Karim Bakhsh and 2 others PLD 1977 Lah. 747; Allah Lok and 2 others v. Sardar Irshadul Hassan and 7 others PLD 1982 Lah. 831; Jan Muhammad and others v. Sher Muhammad and another PLD 1979 SC 985 and Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Ahmad Khan and another PLD 1991 SC 391 that the land given to the J&K Refugees for maintenance cannot be cancelled as it became the property of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs.
9. I find that the petitioner has filed photostat copies of all the annexures including the impugned orders in this writ petition and the writ petition was entertained because there was an application under section 151, C.P.C. Showing in para. 1 "that the petitioner has applied for the supply of certified copies of G/Revision which has not yet been made available" and in para. 2 of the petition "that the petitioner urgently needs the stay order in view of the compelling circumstances on the spot because the respondent is adament to get the possession of the land", and in para. 3 "that definitely some time will be taken in getting the copies of G/Revision which will result in his eviction from the land i,e, irreparable loss to the petitioner." I only find photostat copy of the application under section 151, C.P.C. Duly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner duly supported by an affidavit. It is common ground that the record of the original writ petition was lost and the present writ petition was reconstructed. Be that as it may, the question still remains that the petitioner has not so far furnished the certified copies of various Annexures or orders not it is shown in the application under section 151, C.P.C. That he ever applied for the copies thereof and if that be so, receipt could have been placed on the record.
10. After hearing the petitioner and examining the impugned order I find that the learned Settlement Commissioner was legally right in restoring the disputed land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and there is no legal infirmity whatsoever in the said order.
' For reasons stated above I find no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed. The petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,1,000 as costs to respondents 1 to 3.