' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This order will dispose of three connected petitions for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners viz Civil Petition Nos.1334-L, 1335-L and 1336-L of 1993 all directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in three writ petitions.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of these petitions, briefly stated, are that Mst. Sardar Begum respondent, a claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir had a verified claim of 2632 PI units. She was allotted/confirmed some land worth 314 PI units in village Barnan; Tehsil and District Sialkot on 30-8-1961. Her remaining units were lying still unsatisfied when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L), Sialkot by his orders dated 30-9-1964 and 1-12-1963 confirmed 185 Kanals and 19 Marlas of land in favour of Sain Ahmed respondent No,3, 75 Kanals 2 Marlas in favour of Allah Rakha and Munshi respondents Nos.4 and 5 and 39 Kanals 17 Marlas in favour of Bashir Ahmed respondent No,6 in the aforesaid village. Respondents 3 to 6 are stated to have sold the lands confirmed in their names to Sheikh Ghulam Jillani, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners.
3. Mst. Sardar Begum filed three appeals to challenge the allotments made in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 6. Her contention was that she was a sitting allottee of the village while the respondents' claims were received in the village on transfer; she was confirmed some land in that village in 1961 and her claim was still outstanding in the presence of which the land in dispute could not be allotted/confirmed to the said respondents without satisfying her pending claim. It was also alleged by her that the allotments in question were ante-dated and in all the three cases, the requirements of para 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme were not observed in so far as only the words " " were written though there was no proposal on record which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) had approved by his impugned orders.
' During the hearing of the appeals, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer appeared and contended that land measuring 33 acres, 4 Kanals and 4 Marlas was taken over by the Forest Department in pursuance of a policy directive of the custodian which area was later notified as 'protected forest' vide notification dated 27th October, 1950 for thirty years and the Forest Department was still in physical possession thereof. The officer disclosed that 178 Kanals out of 185 Kanlas 19 Marlas allotted to Sain Ahmed respondent and 68 Kanals 6 Marlas out of 75 Kanals 2 Marlas confirmed in favour of Allah Rakha and Munshi respondents were with the Forest Department. The officer took the stand that evacuee lands in possession of the Forest Department whether notified or not were not to be allotted under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. He also pointed out that the Government had taken a decision to sell the evacuee land in possession of the Forest Department at the rate of Rs,14 per unit ' Respondents Nos.3 to 6 controverted the stand of Mst. Sardar Begum respondent as also of the Forest Department by contending that on the day, the land in dispute was confirmed in their favour, Mst. Sardar Begum had no outstanding units, pending satisfaction in village Harnah as her pending units had already been transferred to District Sargodha; that she was not a temporary allottee of the village and thus, did not have preferential right as against the respondents and that her appeals were time-barred. As regards the claim of the Forest Department, it was contended by the respondents that the Forest Department was not in possession of the land which it had already released vide letter, dated 26th of March, 1960.
' Mst. Sardar Begum in reply denied that her units were transferred from village Harnah. Her plea was that the note recorded on the copy of RL.II did not bear any date nor was it signed by any official and that the note did not disclose the name or the designation of the officer under whose order, her unsatisfied units were allegedly transferred. Her contention was that it was in fact a mala fide' attempt on the part of the respondents to deprive her of her right to claim the land in dispute.
4. Additional Settlement Commissioner on perusal of the record found that Mst. Sardar Begum was confirmed 68 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land equivalent to 163 units on 30-8-1961 which land was confirmed to her from the temporary allotment of her husband. It was noted by the officer that Sardar Khan, the husband of Mst. Sardar Begum was issued permit of temporary allotment on 13- 8-1955 and was given possession of the land allotted to him on 1-12-1955. It was thus held that for all intents and purposes, Mst. Sardar Begum was temporary allottee of the estate. The contention that the units of Mst. Sardar Begum were transferred to Sargodha District was repelled by the, Additional Settlement Commissioner holding that the note "is unsigned and undated. This note is not in the hand-writing of the same official who had made other entries at this serial number." With reference to another note recorded in Column No,10 saying that the remaining 2469 units have gone to Sargodha, the officer observed that this note, too, was undated though signed by Ghulam Qadir Patwari but his signatures on the said note did not tally with his signature in the Remarks Column. It was further observed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that "both these notes neither give the date of the transfer of these units nor do they mention the designation of the officer who ordered the transfer of these units to Sargodha district nor is there any mention of the date on which the transfer orders regarding units were passed by the said officer." It was held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that there was no proof that the units of Mst. Sardar Begum were ever transferred from this estate. It was noted that she never made any application for transfer of her units which fact, according to the officer, coupled with the fact that her claim was reverified on 17-7-1968 for District Sialkot falsified the story of transfer of her units to Sargodha District. It was finally held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the unsigned and undated note regarding the transfer of her units 'was given by some unscrupulous official collusively with the intention of harming the appellant's interests".
' Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the claim of the Forest Department that 33 Acres 4, Kanals and 10 Marlas of land had been notified for afforestation and had been transferred to it by the custodian and according to the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was not available for allotment against the claims. It was, thus, held that "allotment of 240 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land in favour of the respondents was against law and facts." It was further held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the formalities laid down in para 68 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme were not fulfilled in the allotments of respondents Nos.3 to 6 which allotments were also found to be ante-dated and hence a nullity. It was accordingly held that the question of limitation did not arise. For all these reasons, Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) Sialkot by his order dated 6-5-1970 accepted all the three appeals of Mst. Sardar Begum, cancelled the allotments of respondents Nos.3 to 6 and directed that the land notified for afforestation shall be restored to the Forest Department and the remaining land comprising field Nos.281, 444/305, 350, 351, 354, 355, 17, 196, 245, 271, 306, 502/315 and 316 should be confirmed in favour of Mst. Sardar Begum, "if these field numbers do not form the part of the temporary allotment of Jammu and Kashmir refugees and are not 'Ghair-mumkin paths' ."
5. Four revision petitions were filed against the aforementioned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, three by respondents Nos.3 to 6 and one by Mst. Sardar Begum respondent. All the revision petitions were dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 25-4-1974. It appears that simultaneously, a 'Mukhbari' application was moved by one Sardar Hussain through Sheikh Abdul Shakoor son of Sheikh Ghulam Jilani, challenging the legality of allotment of Mst. Sardar Begum on the ground, inter alia, that she had got all her units transferred to Sargodha and yet she did not surrender her allotment in village Harrah, District Sialkot which allotment being a case of double allotment merited cancellation. Mst. Sardar Begum successfully met the objection raised in the 'Mukhbari' application by producing a copy of the aforementioned order of. Additional Settlement Commissioner with the result that the 'Mukhbari' application was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25-7-1975. Chief Settlement Commissioner also took note of the fact that Sheikh Ghulam Jilani, father of Abdul Shakoor, General-Attorney of the 'Mukhbar', had appeared in the case before Additional Settlement Commissioner, as a vendee from the allotees/respondents Nos.3 to 6.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner dated 6-5-1970 and 25-4-1974, Mst. Sardar Begum as also Sheikh Ghulam Jilani, the predecessor of the present petitioners approached the High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction by filing separate petitions. Mst. Sardar Begum filed Writ Petition No,1707/R of 1974 making a grievance that she was not allowed full relief by the Settlement Authorities by wrongfully restoring the notified area to the Forest Department. Sheikh Ghulam Jilani filed Writ Petition No,783-R of 1974 wherein he took the plea that in view of the allotment already secured by Mst. Sardar Begum in District Sargodha, Settlement Authorities were not justified to allow her to retain her original allotment in village Harrah and to give her additional land out of the disputed area. Mst. Sardar Begum also filed Writ Petition No,143/R of 1979 to challenge the legality of allotment purportedly made in her name in District Sargodha, alleging that she never made any motion for transfer of her pending units to Sargodha nor did she obtain any allotment there.
7. All the writ petitions were heard together by a learned Judge of the High Court and disposed of by a single judgment dated 16-10-1993 impugned herein. The learned Judge relying upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1991 SCM R 1426 held that since all the three allotments made in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 6 were of dates prior to the target date of 27-2-1965, the Forest Department had no valid claim qua any part of the disputed land and "It stands eliminated from the contest altogether." As regards inter se merits of Mst. Sardar Begum and the allottees/respondents Nos.3 to 6, the learned Judge upheld the view of the Settlement Authorities in granting preference to Mst. Sardar Begum over the said respondents in the matter of allotment of the disputed land. The learned Judge repelled the contention of the said respondents that Mst.
Sardar Begum had got her units transferred to Sargodha where she had got the land confirmed in her name and as such was divested of any right to lay claim on any part of the disputed land. It was held by the learned Judge that the finding of the Settlement Authorities based upon appraisal of material/evidence on the file was not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The learned Judge observed that there appeared to be a good deal of force in the submission of the learned counsel for Mst. Sardar Begum, that both Ghulam Jilani and his son Abdul Shakoor were in collusion with each other and that, in fact, they had managed the disputed allotments after purchasing units from the allottees and they wanted to eliminate Mst. Sardar Begum, contender for the disputed land, by fraudulently getting her units shifted from Sialkot. It was further observed by the learned Judge that according to para. 44-A of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, allotments to Jammu and Kashmir refugees were to be confined to six border districts and Sargodha being not one of those Districts, no allotment could be made in the name of Mst. Sardar Begum in Sargodha, and consequently, there was no question of sending her claim form/units to said district. The allotment in question was, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority. It was observed by the learned Judge that since the sole reason for granting partial relief to Mst. Sardar Begum was that the remaining area was restored to the Forest Department which claim having been found to be untenable, there was no justification for denying her the relief qua the entire disputed land. Writ petitions filed by Mst. Sardar Begum were accordingly accepted, her alleged allotment in Sargodha District was declared to be nullity in law and a direction was issued to the notified officer concerned to allot the remaining land to her, apart from the Khasra numbers already given to her, in lieu of her outstanding units. Writ Petition No,783-R of 1974 filed by Sheikh Ghulam Jilani, the predecessor of the petitioners was consequently dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions. He has mainly assailed the findings recorded by the High Court and the Settlement Authorities on the question of transfer of the units of Mst. Sardar Begum from village Harnah. He has submitted with reference to a copy of RL-II placed on the present record that the units of Mst. Sardar Begum were transferred to village Batholi Brahmana, Tehsil and District Sialkot where the land measuring 419 Kanals and 4 Marlas was proposed to her on 6-2-1971 and confirmed on 6-3-1971. Learned counsel contended that the Settlement Authorities as also the High Court proceeded on erroneous assumption that the units of Mst. Sardar Begum were transferred to Sargodha District and then observed that as Sargodha was not one of the six Districts where the allotments could be made to Jammu and Kashmir refugees, question of transferring the units to that district did not arise. In the submission of the learned counsel, the finding recorded in the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Settlement Authorities was based on misreading of record. We find that the case of the petitioners throughout was that the units of Mst. Sardar Begum were transferred to District Sargodha. It was so stated by them in ground (e) of their Writ Petition No,783/R of 1974. They cannot, therefore, be permitted to take a different stand in these proceedings. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that Mst. Sardar Begum had made any application for transferring her units to some other village, be it in Sialkot District or Sargodha District. Petitioners have also failed to produce any order of the competent authority directing/permitting the transfer of Mst. Sardar Begum's units out of village Harnah. In the circumstances, contention now being raised by the learned counsel is of no help to him. As noted hereinabove, the Settlement Authorities recorded the impugned finding repelling the petitioners' contention about the transfer of Sardar Begum's units, after proper appraisal/scrutiny of all the relevant material on the record. That being so, their orders were not open to interference in Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court. We quite agree with the observation made by the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioners in their attempt to eliminate Mst. Sardar Begum from the contest manoeuvred the transfer of her units from village Harnah.
9. As stated above, Mst. Sardar Begum was temporary allottee of the village Harnah where she had also got some land confirmed in her name. She, therefore, undoubtedly had a preferential right to the allotment of the land in dispute against her, pending units as compared to respondents Nos.3 to 6 whose units were stated to have been received in the village much later. That being so, the allotments of the said respondents were rightly set aside by the Settlement Authorities with the directions to allot the area in dispute to Mst. Sardar begum against her pending claim.
10. In view of what has been said above, we find no good ground for the grant of leave to appeal.
These petitions are accordingly dismissed.