1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN. C.J. The petitioner No. 1 and the three pre--decessors-in-interest of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 9, who are displaced persons from East Punjab, were allotted lands in Chak No. 122/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. Subsequently, can verification of their claims, the same lands were confirmed in their favour with marginal adjustments, under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
2. In the year, 1963, however, on the application of one, Mana son of Jamu, under section 11 of the above-mentioned Awl, an enquiry was held and it was found that the four allottees had respectively obtained 30, 70, 23 and 26 units of excess lands. The excess allotmentwere, therefore, cancelled by the respondent No. 1, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, on the 29th July, 1969.
3. The petitioners went in revision from this order to the High Court, but this was subsequently converted into a writ petition, and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 10th March, 1975.
4. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal. The first complaint of the petitioners is that they were not heard by the respondent No. 1 when he purported to cancel their allotments and the learned Judge in the High Court was wrong in taking the view that the allottees were represented through persons who were similar allottees.
5. Actually, apart from the petitioner No. 1, the other original allottees had ail died between 1954 and 1959, and, therefore, even if notices were sent out as stated in tire order of the S. D. M./f). S. C.
6. (Lands), Pakpattan, who held the essential enquiry, none of the present petitioners were served or could have been served, because, the notices must have been issued in the s of the original right- holder:.
7. The next contention advanced is that lands allotted under the Rehabilitation Scheme could not be cancelled under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. On this point, it is contended that the decisions of the High Court are in conflict. In the case of Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi v. Muhammad Khan (PLD 1964 Lah 469) this view found favour, but it was dissented from in the subsequentcase of Pak Tanneries Ltd. v. Hidayat Ullah. (PLD 1972 Lah 880).
8. The case of Syed Shaukat Hussain actually came up to this Court but this point was neither raised not: argued tat the appeal ride incident if this Court reported in PLD 1974 SC 276.
9. Learned counsel contends that at least this conflict in the decisions of the High Court should be resolved by the Court.
10. Lastly, it is contended that the Settlement Authorities have not con--sidered whether the petitioners were entitled to retain the excess aria oil payment of its market value, as the; were riot in excess of 10 % Beshi admissible under the instructions of rite Settlement Department.
11. So far as the first point is concerned, the High Court his, on perusal of the Settlement records, found that the petitioner No. 2 appeared on behalf of his deceased father Ibrahim and Ghulam appeared on behalf of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 5 appeared on behalf of his father, Nawab Din and petitioner No. 9 appeared- for his father, Wali Muhammad. Thus, all the original allottees were represented. At least one of the heirs of each of deceased right-holders had appeared and the petitioner No. I was also represented. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that they had no opportunity to contest the proceedings. This also shows that they must have been served and the other co-sharers too must have come to know of, the notices issued by the Settlement Authorities.
12. They should have appeared if they so desired.
13. As regards the second point, we do not think that this is a tit case in which the question needs to be decided.
14. There is no dispute that the petitioners had, in fact, received excess allotments. Hence the real question that arises in this case is as to whether they should have been allowed by the Settlement Authorities to retain their respective excess allotments which are not very large under the discretionary powers of the Settlement Authorities. Since there is no allegation that this excess allotment was obtained by practising any fraud upon the Settlement Authorities or by any misrepresentation, we think that the petitioners should go back and move the Settlement Authorities for allowing them to retain the excess areas on payment of market value, on the ground that they have been in cultivating possession thereof since their original allotments and have developed the same. We feel certain that the Settlement Authorities will give due and sympathetic consideration to their cases.
15. With this observation, this petition is however, dismissed.