MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against judgment dated 2-8-1992 by which learned Judge in Chamber has accepted Writ Petition No,152/R-92 filed by the respondent, quashed the order dated 6-7-1992 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Notified Officer and direction issued to the said officer to allot the land in question treating it as evacuee against the claim of the respondents as verified in the order dated 15-7-1984 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad.
2. The facts forming the back-ground of this appeal relevant for its disposal shortly stated are that evacuee land situated in District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) was transferred through exchange by the Federal Government under the settlement laws to the Provincial Government in exchange of State land. Since a number of displaced persons/claimants were in possession of different portions of the said land on the basis of temporary allotments under the settlement laws, as such, the transfer of the said evacuee land created unrestlessness among them. The legality of this transfer through exchange of evacuee land was challenged in Writ Petition No,899/66 and a number of other writ petitions before this court. These writ petitions were decided in 1970 by His Lordship Mr. Justice S. Anwar-ul-Haq as he then was by which though the transfer of evacuee land by the Federal Government to the Provincial Government through exchange which converted the said land as State land owned by the Provincial Government was as a matter of principle upheld and maintained but it was provided that those temporary allottees whose verified claims were pending satisfactions in District Faisalabad and they continued to be in possession of the said land when the said judgment was delivered should be allotted/transferred such land treating the same as still evacuee notwithstanding the transfer of the same to the Provincial Government.
3. The case of the respondents writ petitioner came up for hearing before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner Faisalabad Division to determine whether the same fell within the scope of the said criteria and they could retain the land and the same should be transferred to them as provided in the said judgment. It was decided by him through order dated 15-7-1984. The said officer after examining the record and holding detailed inquiry came to the conclusion that verified claim of Mehr Ali, deceased predecessor in interest of the respondents, was to the tune of 360 P.I. Units which was filed for Chak No,279/R.B. Subsequently his urban claim of 133 P.I. Units had also been verified and the same was, settled in Kamalia, as such, he was entitled to get allotment of land in Chak No,279/R.B to satisfy his remaining varified claim to the tune of 327 P.I. Units where are he was holding temporary allotment and his claim remained in D.C.
Office Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) since 1957 and he contained to retain possession of the same till the decision of the High Court in the said writ petition on 10-6-1970. He categorically held in the said order that land measuring 10 Kanals 17 Marlas in Killa No,1, 6 Kanals 1 Marla in Killa No,2 and 5 Kanals 12 Marlas in Killa No,11/1 (totalling 22 Kanals 10 Marlas) in Sq.No,55 equal to 227 P.I. Units in Chak No,279/R.B. should be considered as evacuee land and orders of allotment should be formally passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad, in respect thereof in favour of the respondents.
4. The Provincial Government/Member Board of Revenue feeling aggrieved of the said findings and directions given in the order dated 15-7-1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, filed Writ Petition No,245/R-90 in this court which was dismissed on 7-10-1991. The Board of Revenue challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court through C.P.S.L.A. No,1109/L-91 which was also dismissed by the said Court through judgment dated 26-5-1992, therefore, order dated 15-7-1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)
Settlement Commissioner in favour of the respondents was upheld upto Supreme Court and had attained finality.
5. The Assistant Commissioner as a Notified Officer being an officer subordinate to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner instead of implementing the said order in the first instance delayed the matter and thereafter reopened the case, examined the same and recorded findings contrary to the findings already given by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 15-7-1984 and held that the respondents did not fulfil the criteria as laid down in the judgment dated 10-6-1970 passed in Writ Petition No,899/66 as such, were not entitled to allotment of land treating the same as evacuee, therefore, he declined to pass formal order for allotment of the said land to the respondents through order dated 6-7-1992.
6. This order was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No,152/R-92 from which the present appeal has arisen. The learned Single Judge held that order dated 15-7-1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner had attained finality, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was bound to obey and implement the same. The writ Petition has been accepted through judgment dated 2-8-1992 and a direction issued to the Assistant Commissioner Faisalabad to allot the land in question as directed in the order dated 15-7-1984 to the respondents within two weeks which has been assailed in this appeal.
7. The main burden of argument presented by Mr. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, learned A.A.G. on behalf of the appellants in support of this appeal was that Assistant Commissioner Faisalabad as Notified Officer was required to pass order for allotment of land in favour of the respondents in accordance with law, therefore, he could determine whether the case of the respondents fell within the scope of criteria provided in the judgment dated 10-6-1970 passed in W.P. No,899/1966 and that such land the allotment of which in favour of the respondents was sought, could be transferred to them treating the same as evacuee.
8. We are afraid the argument in our considered view is plainly unsound and cannot be accepted without doing evidence to the finality attached to the order dated 15-7-1984 after the dismissal of Writ Petition No,245/R-90 filed by the Provincial Government against the said order and C.P.S.L.A. No, 1109/L91 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Apart from this the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner had already examined the case of the respondents and after holding detailed inquiry and granting opportunity to all concerned of hearing reached a conclusion that the respondents' case had satisfied the criteria as laid down by this court in the judgment dated 10-6-1970, as such, they were entitled to the allotment of specific land to the extent of 227 P.I. Units in Chak No,279/R.B and issued direction for allotment of the (sic) same treating the same as evacuee to the respondents. This finding of fact recorded by an officer who was higher in rank whose said findings had attained finality, as such, the same could neither be ignored nor reopened by any officer at any level much less an officer subordinate to him i,e, A.C.
Faisalabad. If such like insubordination is ignored as argued by Mr. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, learned A.A.G. the entire system would collapse and the subordinate officers would have no respect for the judgments and orders passed by the authorities to whom they are subordinate.
9. The learned Single Judge has taken lenient view of the matter and did not proceed against the concerned A.C. for contempt of Court and merely directed him to implement the order dated 15-7- 1984 and pass formal order of allotment of the land mentioned therein in favour of the respondents within two weeks to which no exceptions can be taken.
10.Before parting with this judgment we may deal with C.M. No,1344/97 moved on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the quantum of unsatisfied verified claim at Faisalabad of the petitioner had not been correctly worked out for according to them as verified subsequently by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner their unsatisfied claim was to the extent of 806 P.I. Units and not 287 P.I. Units, therefore, a direction should be issued for allotment of land equivalent to 806 P.I. Units. We are afraid such a direction could neither be sought in these proceedings nor issued. If the respondents were not satisfied with the findings of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner recorded in his order dated 15-7-1984 as to the extent of unsatisfied P.I. Units at Faisalabad against which land was ordered to be allotted to them they should seek remedy against the said order if available to them under the law. C.M.
No,1344/97 is, therefore, dismissed.
11.For the foregoing reasons this appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.Assistant Commissioner, Faislabad Notified officer is hereby directed to pass formal order of allotment of the land in favour of the respondents as directed in the order dated 15-7-1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment failing which the request of the appellants for proceeding against the said officer for contempt of Court may be considered.