1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Haji Muhammad Siddique and others, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 13-1-1992 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby Intra-Court Appeal No, 154/79 filed by the Border Area Committee Lahore, respondent herein, was accepted, the judgment impugned therein was set aside and the writ issued by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 21-5-1979 recalled with the result that the allotment made in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners stood cancelled.
2. ' The chequered history of the case is that Sami Khan was a heir of one Chotey Khan son of Mala Meo who had died during the disturbance of 1947 and his Inheritance Mutation No, 44 was sanctioned in the name of Sami Khan. He filed Claim No, 63% and in lieu thereof he was allotted land in village Wadhana, District Kasur. This was cancelled on 14-2-1962. However, on 1-6-1962, the Border Area Committee passed another order holding that Sami Khan was the rightful heir of Chotey Khan. He filed Writ Petition No, 1464/63 in the High Court praying for the restoration of allotment to him in view of the order dated 1-6-1962, whereby, he was found rightful heir of Chotey Khan. The prayer was declined by the High Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to question the order of Border Area Committee. Thereafter, Sami Khan secured allotment of land measuring 2452 Kanals 4 Marlas in village Nagar Ahmedpur and 5738 Kanals 3 Marlas in village Moakkal, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur on 17-7-1969 and 18-8-1969 respectively in lieu of his verified claim. On 15-1-1978 the Border Area Committee cancelled the same though prior thereto Sami Khan had already sold the land allotted to him to the petitioners and mutations duly attested and incorporated in the revenue record. This was challenged in Writ Petition No,358-R/78 which was accepted on 21-5-1979. The Border Area Committee challenged the order in I.-CA. No, 154/79 which was accepted through the impugned order. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.
4. ' The grounds on which the impugned order is attacked are--
(i) that the Border Area Committee was not properly constituted, inasmuch as, at the time of the impugned order Rehabilitation Laws had already been repealed and that the representative of the Rehabilitation Commissioner could no longer continue as member of the committee and participate in the proceedings of cancellation at the time of the impugned order of the Border Area Committee regarding cancellation of allotment in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners; that the Committee could scrutinize only those allotments which were made under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme including the Border Scheme but the allotment in question having been made by the Border Committee itself, was final and could not be reviewed; and
(iii) that under paragraph 9 of the regulation only those allotments made prior to 20-3-1959 when the Martial Law Regulation was promulgated could be scrutinised and that the Committee cannot sit on the judgment of the Revenue Officer attesting the mutation. That the Ordinance No, 3 of 1981 was itself ultra vires.
5. Since many legal points are involved and there is variance between the several judgments of the High Court, it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly granted. The Advocate- General, Punjab shall personally appear to assist the Court in this case.