' The order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos, 283/R-75, 318/R-75, 387/R-75 and 148/R-76 as these involve a question of law common to all. Facts leading to these petitions are as follows Writ Petition No, 283/R of 1975 I. A claim form No, 22524 was filed by Khudia for verification of land abandoned by Mohar Singh on 25-1-1952. The claim was verified in favour of the right-holder. A mutation of inheritance bearing No, 51 was sanctioned in favour of Mst. Suhagi, petitioner No, 1, as a sole heir and daughter of the right-holder on 21-4-1955. Allotment was confirmed on the Khata of the right-holder for an area of 29 kanals 6 marlas at RL 11 No, 308 in village Zafar Key, Tehsil Kasur District Lahore on 28-1-1955.
Some seven years later, respondent No, 5 filed a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. An Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising delegated jx)wers of the .Chief Settlement Commissioner, held, that he was satisfied that Mst. Sohagi was not the daughter of Mohar Singh the right-holder and that the allotment on his Khata was fictitious. He, thus, cancelled the land allotted to Mohar Singh and then transferred to Mst. Suhagi. He, further, ordered that "the land is now open for allotment. The claim of the present applicant may also be considered on merits." This is vide order dated 3-7-1970. Mst. Suhagi alias Mst. Saluki alongwith her husband filed a Settlement Revision in this Court bearing No, 142/70 which was admitted for regular hearing and order of status quo was passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 30-7-1970. Subsequently, it was returned to the petitioners for challenging the impugned order by means of a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner as that became permissible. A revision petition was, then, presented before the Settlement Commissioner.
The Settlement Commissioner observed that the version before the lower Court that Mst. Suhagi was not the daughter of Mohar Singh was based on reliable evidence and that the contention that the witnesses against her were related to the informers had no force because in the circumstances no outsider could know the situation and none was coming forward to state the truth. He, thus, held the petitioner No, 1 was not entitled to relief. As regards respondent No, 4 that he be treated as a first informer, the Settlement Commissioner left the matter to the discretion of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to consider the contention on its merits, With the above observations, he dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 9-11-1973. The petitioner No, 1 applied for purchase of land in her possession by means of separate applications dated 3-4-1974 and 15-4-1974. The land was however, allotted to the respondent N. 4 on 20-5-1974 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner alongwith her husband, filed a revision petition and it was urged that the allotment could not be made to the respondent as an informer because there was no provision of law then existing when the land was cancelled on 3-7-1970, and that the petitioner No, 1 had applied for purchase of the land and it should have been offered for sale in accordance with Ordinance XV of 1974. The Settlement Commissioner held that the petitioner No, l's allotment was cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-7-1970 and that order had been maintained by the Settlement Commissioner on 9-11-1973. It was not challenged any further. The order had, thus, attained finality. Further, that the new law on the subject clearly entitled the informer to allotment. As regards the right of the petitioners to purchase the land, it was observed that provisions of Ordinance XV of 1974 were net correctly understood. Section 3 (b) of Ordinance XV of 1974 (Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974) clearly laid down that the purchase is to be allowed only in such cases where the land is available. In this case, in view of the allotment made as far back as 20-5-1974 the land was no more available since it had been allotted and confirmed in the name of the respondent. It may not be lost sight of that the Ordinance XV of 1974 in itself came into operation with effect from 1-7-1974. In view of the allotment having been confirmed in the name of the respondent on 20-5-1974 the provision of purchase allowed by the Ordinance XV of 1974 coming into force on 1.7-1974 does not come into play. As already stated above, the land was not available to be disposed of by way of sale. Thus, the learned Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioners' revision petition vide order dated 9-1- 1975. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Settlement authorities by means of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that, firstly, the order of cancellation of allotment from the name of the petitioner No, 1 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-7- 1970 on the finding that the petitioner No, 1 in whose favour a mutation had been sanctioned some 15 years earlier was not the daughter of the right-holder is arbitrary and illegal. It is, secondly, contended that in the aforesaid order, it was said that the land "will be now open to allotment."
Therefore, it should have been allotted in the name of the petitioner No, 2, husband of petitioner No, 1, who was a temporary allottee of the estate and entitled to preference. Thirdly, it is contended that petitioner No, 1 had applied for purchase of the land in question on 3rd and 15th of April 1974 and without disposal of her applications, the land could not have been allotted to respondent No, 4 on 20-5-1974 : Fourthly, that the allotment could not have been made in favour of the respondent No, 4 as an informer because he was not the informer. The informer was respondent No, 5 on whose application the proceedings of cancellation had culminated in the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 3-7-1970. Therefore, it is submitted that if the allotment had not been made in favour of the respondent No, 4, as it could not be legally, then, the petitioners were entitled to be offerred the land in their occupation for purchase in accordance with Ordinance XV of 1974.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 4, to whom the land has been allotted, has contended that the issues as to whether the respondent was an informer or not was not raised by the petitioners before the relevant authorities and they cannot now raise it in this Court. It is also submitted that the allotment has been made to the respondent No, 4 in accordance with section 14-A of Act XXXVI of 1974 and the respondent being a claimant and a temporary allotee of the estate was rightly allotted the land and no exception can be taken thereto. It is submitted that old Settlement cases should not be reopened. Reliance is placed on Abdul Khaliq v. Sultan Butt and another (1). It is, further, contended that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 3-7-1970 cancelling the allotment of the petitioner No, 1, as upheld by the Settlement Commissioner on 9-11-1973, having not been challenged further, has attained finality and cannot be challenged in these proceedings by means of a petition filed on 8-4-1975. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner No, 1 had wrongly got the allotment as a sole heir and daughter of Mohar Singh which she was rot and, therefore, the allotment was cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-7-1970.
Consequently, the petitioner No, 1 having acted wrongly in securing the allotment is not entitled to relief from this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under the Constitution because a person guilty of fraud is not entitled to an equitable relief. Reliance is placed on Ahmad Khan and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan and others (2) and Mirza Muhammad Shafi v. The Collector, Sheikhupura and others (3) It is added that no writ should be issued to allow a person to retain illegal gains. Reliance is placed on The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v.
Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (4).
Writ Petition No, 318/R of 1975
4. Facts leading to this petition are that land measuring 93 kanals (1)PLD 1973 Lah. 313 (2) PLD 1963 Kar. 450
(3) PLD 1968 Lah. 403 (4) PLD 1975 SC 331 14 marlas was allotted in Chak No, 211/RB and 28 kanals 18 marlas in Chak No, 100/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur to the petitioner. From the allotment in Chak No, 211/RB, the petitioner exchanged an area of 58 kanals 14 marlas with respondent No, 2 with the latter's land measuring 51 kanals 12 marlas in the same Chak.
' The land allotted in Chak No, 100/RB was sold by the petitioner to Mahr Din, Nathe Khan and Badar Din for consideration. On receipt of a reference from the Director or Enforcement, Evacuee Property and Claims Lahore dated 7-3-1966, Sardar Hidayat Ullah Mokal, Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, held that the allotment had been obtained by the petitioner by impersonation thus, committing fraud and false representation and so he ordered that "the agricultural land measuring 122 kanals and 2 marlas originally allotted in the name of Abdul Aziz alias Aziz alias Khanda son of Imam in Chak No, 100 and 211/RB, Tehsil Jaranwala District Lyallpur be cancelled forthwith and as all the subsequent transactions of the land in dispute are illegal, they shall stand void, inoperative and shall have no legal effect. The Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur is directed to ; (I) take over the possession of land equivalent to 122 kanals and 2 marlas from the respondent Abdul Aziz alias Aziz alias Khanda son of Imam Din To call upon the respondent to render accounts of the mesne profits for the period the land remained in their illegal possession in accordance with Jhar Bandobast and to realise the same as arrears of land revenue; and not to re-allot the resumed area to any person without the prior approval of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner. To furnish full details of the land resumed together with a copy of his order to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for obtaining his orders regarding the fresh disposal of the land in terms of Memo Nos. 4027-6/3576-R (L) dated 21-7-1966 No, 6167-66/ 5624-R (L) dated 2-10-1966 and endorsement No, 6167-66/5622-R (L) dated 2-11-1966. This is vide order dated 18-7-1967. The petitioner challenged this order in this Court by mans of a Settlement Revision No, 111/67. It was dismissed as a writ petition by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 22-9-1967. The petitioner, after leave, filed Civil Appeal No, 271/69 in the Supreme Court. It was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on 14th June 1973. The petitioner, then, filed an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 29-11-1973 that the land in question, being in his possession, may be sold to him and price realized according to new policy and law prevalent in the Country. The matter was taken up by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who recommended the application to the Deputy Commissioner on 11-3-1974 who, in turn, recommended and forwarded the same to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The latter forwarded the matter for necessary action to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jaranwala in accordance with the instructions contained in Circular letter No, 24/POL dated 21-1-1974. While the application was pending, Ordinance XV of 1974 was promulgated. It was subsequently enacted as Act XIV of 1975, known as Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Laws) (Repeal) Act, 1975 to be effective from 1st of July 1974, which allowed sale of land in favour of the occupants under certain circumstances, The Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the case of the petitioner for purchase on 3-3-1975 and came to the conclusion that according to paragraph No, 2 of the Circular letter No, 915/POL dated 20-11-1974 it was provided that "the sale shall be made only in case the land has not been withdrawn under any judicial order of a competent authority", and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the land. Thus holding, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner declined to sell the land to the petitioner, and ordered a part of the cancelled allotment to be allotted to Sardar Khan respondent No, 1 as an informer, a part to be disposed of by means of auction and also set aside the mutation of exchange between the petitioner and the respondent No,
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlemeht Commissioner who held that "under the law only that land can be purchased by the appellant in which order (of allotment) has not been set aside or cancelled by the Settlement Authorities. In this case the allotment was cancelled as far back as 1967. He, therefore, cannot purchase it". Thus, he dismissed the petitioner's revision petition on 31-3-1975. The petitioner, again, approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner for purchase but the later refused to interfere in the judicial order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and advised the petitioner to seek remedy in the High Court. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Younus Bhatti, Advocate, who has mainly argued these cases and with deligence, if one may say so, has contended that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner had declined to sell the land to the petitioner by reference to Circular letter No, 915/POL dated 20-11-1974 but the same has lost its efficacy on the enactment of Act XIV of 1975 and under the later provisions in section 3 subsection (1) (b), the petitioner being in occupation of the land in question continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 was entitled to be offered the same for sale, unless there was an order of ejectment passed against hiin which, in fact, has not undeniably, been passed. The Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 18-7-1967 had cancelled the allotment and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to take over possession and not to re-allot the land to anybody. The possession was not taken from the petitioner and the petitioner still continue to remain in possession. The land having not been allotted validly at the relevant time was still available for sale, therefore, should have been sod to the petitioner. It is contended that the Circular letter referred to above has not only lost its efficacy but also cannot override the statute. As regards the conduct of the petitioner that the allotment has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and, therefore, he is not entitled to discretionary relief under the Constitution, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is seeking relief on the basis of a statute and equitable principles governing discretion do not override an Act of Parliament. It is submitted that Equity itself follows law as is the maxim stated in Snell's Equity, 25th Edition, pages 24-26. Reference is also made to Digest of Equity by Srahan's 6th Edition, Article 150 pages 437 & 438. It is submitted that Equity itself comes to the aid of law and not in derogation thereof, and since the law confers a right on the petitioner to purchase the land in dispute, he cannot be denied the relief on account of his past conduct. Reference is also made to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, page 253.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has contended that a right of action cannot arise from fraud, nor, can it spring out of fraud, He has placed reliance on Broome's Maxims, page 497. He has also submitted that no one should be permitted to take advantage of his own fraud and has referred to page 191 of the aforesaid treatise. It is, next, submitted that intention of the statute should be kept in view while interpreting the same and that there is nothing in the statute referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person who had obtained allotment by fraud should be able to purchase the same if his fraud comes to light and the allotment is cancelled. He has however candidly pointed out Mst. Soiw Bai v. Bajat Khan (1) for the proposition that the principles of equity cannot be used to defeat law but has placed reliance on Ramdeo Ram v. Frank combs and others (2) for the proposition that Courts of equity cannot grant relief against law. It is, further, submitted that as far as the respondent No, is concerned, the latter had exchanged his land for a portion of the land allotted to the petitioner. Now when the petitioner's allotment has been cancelled, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has rightly ordered restoration of the land of the respondent No, 2 to the latter. Writ Petition No, 387/R of 1975
7. This application is by the purchasers from the previous writ petitioner, Abdul Aziz. They contend that if the original allottee i,e, Abdul Aziz, had been found to be disentitled to retain the allotment, the petitioners who are bona fide purchasers for value, being in possession of a part of the land in question, should have been sold the same in their occupation as they fulfiled the requisite conditions as laid down in Act XIV of 1975, and that the land in question could not have been allotted to Sardar Khan, respondent No, 2 as an informer because the allotment of Abdul Aziz had been cancelled on the reference of the Director of Enforcement, Evacuee property, and Sardar Khan was not treated as an informer by the Settlement Commissioner when the allotment of Abdul Aziz was cancelled vide order dated 18-7-1967. He could not have been subsequently so treated in ex parte proceedings as an informer.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has contended that the-petitioners have no right to maintain this petition as the allotment in favour of their predecessor-in-interest is found to be bogus and they cannot derive any benefit from his misdeeds. It is, further, submitted that the allotment has been rightly made to the respondent No, 2 and the petitioners have no--right to question the same. Writ Petition No, 148/R of 1976
9. The petitioners filed a Claim Form for the land abandoned by Mst. Jewani in India. The claim was verified in due course and a mutation of inheritance was entered in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Naib Tebsildar on 14-12-1952. It was subsequently sanctioned in their favour alongwith their mother. The allotment was made in favour of the right-holder by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, sometime around 1953, of an area measuring 39i kanals in Chak No, 29 Janubi Tehsil and District Sargodha. The Director of Enforcement, Evacuee Properties, vide his report dated 4-10-1903 referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for resumption of the disputed land on the ground that the petitioners hal not connection with the deceased right-holder. The allotment was cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, on 25-9-1964. The petitioners challenged this order by means of a Settlement Revision No, 8/65 which was allowed and case remanded for fresh decision. It was taken up by Sardar Hidavat Ullah Mokai, Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, and he observed that "I am fully satisfied that none of the claimants- could be held entitled to allotment of land in lieu of the area abandoned by Mst. Jewani widow of Muhammad Bakhsh. I, therefore, in exercise of powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced
(1) 52 I C 200 (2) AIR 1929 All. 427 ' Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, order that the allotment of land confirmed to Ghulam Muhammad, Din Muhammad sons of Ismail in Chak No, 29/SB, Sargodha be cancelled forthwith and area resumed. The illegal occupants may be directed to render the accounts of the mesne profits derived by them and the same be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue. The area so resumed shall be utilised for the compensation of genuine claimants strictly in accordance with Circular Memo No, 4160-69/3571-R (L), dated 10-6-1969, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore. A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha, for immediate necessary action." This is vide order dated 4-11-1971. The petitioners challenged this order by means of Settlement Revision No, 49/72 which was partly allowed by setting aside the direction that the petitioners should render accounts of mesne profits. Otherwise, the order was maintained This is vide order of a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 26-5-1972. No further steps were taken in the matter either by the petitioners or any authority until the petitioners applied for purchase of the land in their possession on the basis of Memo No, 24/POL, dated 9-1-1974. The application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 8-7-1974. The petitioners, teen, filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner who held that he had no jurisdiction but directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha to decide the case in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Ordinance XV of 1974. This is vide order dated 6-12-1974. In the integrum, the land was cancelled from the names of the petitioners en 14-5-1974, and a mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government on 10-11-1974. In pursuance of the above mentioned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 6.12-1974, the petitioners filed another application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 10-12-1974 praying for permission to purchase the land in question in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Ordinance XV of 1974. The respondents Nos.
1 to 3 moved the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for putting the land in question on superdari but those proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority by this Court in Writ Petition No, 274/R-75 decided on 12-12-1975 and no more need be said in this behalf because this matter has no further relevance. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, while dealing with the application of the petitioners dated 13-12-1974 for purchase, observed that the petitioners do not qualify for obtaining the land for the following reasons :- "(1) paragraph 3 (b) of Ordinance XV of 1974 provides that "agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for 4 harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land".
' In the case of Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad it is clear that an order of ejectment was passed against them by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 4-11-1971 and that order is still in force as maintained even by the High Court. This position is admitted even by Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad.
(ii) On the basis of said order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 4-11-1971 the allotment of land in dispute was cancelled from the names of Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad and the land was resumed in the name of Central Government vide mutation No, 285 dated 10-11-1974.
And further Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad were dispossessed of the land in dispute on 4-3-1975 vide Roznamcha Rapat dated 4-3-1975.
' Notwithstanding the formal orders of ejectment, Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad had lost all locus standi in respect of land in question which stood resumed from them by the operation of order of Chief Settlement Commissioner which is still subsisting.
(iv) The prayer of Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad for purchasing the land under the New scheme was rejected by the learned Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner
(Land) on 8-7-1974. This order is still in existence because the learned Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha had not interferred with this order observing that he was not competent to deal with the revision against the said order.
(v) Even under the new scheme, the application for purchase of land had to be submitted on or before 28-2-1974 but Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad submitted their applications on 27-4-1974. Thus the request of Ghulam Muhammad and Din Muhammad was also barred by time limit.
(vi) The principle laid down in PLD 1972 Lah. 880 further supports the doctrine that persons whose allotments have been cancelled under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were liable to surrender possession of the land in their occupation and if the occupation of any person was invalid then he was not entitled to `possession'."
' As regards the allotment to the respondent, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed that "tile land has to be disposed of in accordance with the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 4-11-1971 for utilising the same for compensation of the genuine claimant. In case they are found to be genuine, there is no bar to the allotment against their verified claim." This is vide order dated 28-1-1976. The petitioners have challenged this order by means of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner was in error in holding that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed on 4-i1-1971 was an order of ejectment against the petitioners. Learned counsel has referred to the order and submitted that by that order the Chief Settlement Commissioner had ordered that "the allotment be cancelled forthwith and area resumed." It is submitted that the allotment was not cancelled until 14-5-1974 and the area was never resumed. It is still in the possession or occupation of the petitioners. It is, next, contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner fell in error in holding that since petitioners' application had been rejected earlier by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 8-7-1974 and that order was not set aside by the Settlement Commissioner on revision, the petitioners were not entitled to relief, because the Settlement Commissioner had expressly directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide the case of the petitioners in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ordinance XV of 1974. It is, then, contended that it was incorrect to hold that the application of the petitioners was barred by time because the time limit for applying for purchase has been extended from time to time Learned counsel has, finally, contended that although the petitioners' allotment was cancelled and it was further ordered that the land be resumed but, in fact, no order of ejectment from the land was passed against the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the-Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and has pointed out that in subsection (2) of section 11 of the aforesaid Act, it is laid down that "any allottee, lease-holder or occupant of any land acquired under this Act by reason of lack of valid allotment order of lease or on account of an order made under subsection (1) is not or ceases to be entitled to the possession of such land, he shall, when so required by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, surrender the possession thereof to the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf". Learned counsel contended that though the petitioners' allotment was cancelled but they were never required by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to surrender the possession. It is, further, pointed out that in subsection (3) of section 11 of the Act, it is laid down that "if any person required under subsection (2) to surrender possession of land fails to do so, the Chief Settlement Commissioner or any person authorised in this behalf may notwithstanding anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force eject such person and take possession of the land by use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary for the purpose." Learned counsel has submitted that no action under subsection (3) aforesaid was taken and the petitioners were never ejected from the land in dispute. Learned counsel has, finally, submitted that the purpose of the aforementioned Ordinance XV of 1974 is to avoid disturbance and dislocation of occupants of the land, irrespective of the fact that their title to occupation was not through a valid order of allotment. Learned counsel has submitted that a clear distinction has to be drawn in the matter of 'possession' and "occupation". Possession is under a valid authority of law, whereas, occupation implies that there was no legal authority to hold. If one may refer to the meaning of the word 'occupied', one would find in Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition, that its meaning is "to take possession of (country, region, town, strategic position) by military force or settlement. Clearly, it involves a non-legal method with reference to the then existing legal norms.
Therefore, it would appear that when the word 'occupied' is used for allowing a person so occupying to purchase the land in his occupation, the intention of the Legislature is clear that the occupant is there without lawful authority, but that rights are being conferred on him nonetheless.
Therefore, the conduct of the occupant would be irrelevant for determining his rights under the Ordinance.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the-petitioners are not entitled to relief as they had obtained allotment by fraud, the same had been cancelled, and the area so allotted ordered to be resumed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 4-11-1971. That order had attained finality. Consequently, the petitioners' occupation being wrongful, they are not entitled to purchase the land, or, at any rate, to a relief from this Court.
12. One important question which calls for determination in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, if they are otherwise entitled to purchase the land in their occupation under the statute, on account of the fact that their present occupation of the lands in dispute springs from the fact that they had got it allotted by misrepresentation or fraud and the same had been cancelled on that score in exercise of powers under sectior s 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The precise contention on behalf of the contesting respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief under the Constitution because they have been found to have got the land by fraud and misrepresentation and nobody should be allowed to reap the fruits of their own fraud and misrepresentation and, certainly, not, when the jurisdiction invoked of a Court is a discretionary jurisdiction. On behalf of the petitioners, the argument is that even if the petitioners had obtained the allotment through misrepresentation or fraud in the first instance, yet, they are in occupation of the same and they, being in occupation, are entitled to purchase the same under the statute as the law provides that an occupant for the requisite period shall be offered the land for sale in the given circumstances. Learned counsel have submitted that a clear distinction has to be drawn between the fact of "possession" and "occupation". The former may involve legal authority to hold possession. In the latter case, it is taken for granted that there was no legal authority to hold the land or to occupy the same. When the Legislature clearly used the word 'occupied', it meant that even when the possession was without lawful authority, the person in occupation would be entitled to the benefits of the statute.
' Reference is also made to the word "possession" as defined in section 2 0) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Aet, 1958, wherein it is stated that "possession" means possession obtained in pursuance of an order passed on or before 10th of December 1958. "It is pointed out that under the definition a large number of persons living in evacuee houses would have been disentitled to transfer of the houses on the basis of possession, therefore, a proviso was added by the Legislature to allow the Central Government to direct that persons who have not obtained possession as aforesaid may also be deemed to be in possession. Consequently, for all these persons, notifications were issued by the Central Government providing that persons who were in "undisputed occupation" will also be entitled to transfer. The idea was clearly to avoid disturbance and dislocation of large number of people. The same consideration was not only known to the Legislature but was also intended to be given effect to under the statute inhand when it was laid down that the land "occupied" by any person for the requisite period shall first be offered for sale to that person. It was clearly the intention and was so understood that the persons who were to be offered the land had no right in law to be in possession of the same which, in other words, would mean that they were there contrary to law, because the land belonged to and vested in the Custodian or the Central Government. Their position would be no better than that of a tresspasser. Yet to avoid en massee disturbance and dislocation, laudable objects indeed, the Legislature allowed such persons to purchase the land in their occupation. The Legislature, in fact, used the word "occupied" and said that the land shall be offered to the occupants. This clearly means that the Legislature had intended to ignore the initial conduct of the occupants and had chosen in its wisdom to confer on them rights by a statute. That being so, the conduct of the petitioners that they previously came to occupy the land by' misrepresentation or fraud would not be relevant for determination of thei rights under the statute. The fact that the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners is a discretionary jurisdiction under the Constitution does not mean that the past conduct of the petitioners shall be so visited as to deprive them of rights conferred on them by the statute. The discretion has to b exercised in accordance with law and not in derogation of a statute. Nor B can a statute be ignored or rendered ineffective by reference to the pas conduct of people on whom the Legislature has chosen to confer rights. There is no doubt that nobody should be allowed to reap the fruits of thei own fraud and certainly not obtain relief from a Court exercising dis cretionary jurisdiction but it cannot be lost sight of that in these petition the petitioners are not seeking relief to reap the fruits of their own frauds. Those frauds have been exposed and the petitioners have been denuded of their title to the land in their possession. For their misdeeds, so to say. They have been punished by loss of title to property. Now they are seeking to pay for the land in their occupation. Consequently, it cannot be said that they are taking advantage of their own fraud. That Chapter has come to an end with the loss of title. Now, they are seeking to acquire fresh rights by down payment, so to speak. The right has been conferred on them by a statute. They cannot be denied the benefit of the new norm. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents that no writ is to be issued in favour of a person who has committed a fraud or has come to Court with unclean hands even when the orders challenged by them are without jurisdiction or without lawful authority proceed on the basis that the petitioners have no right in themselves. None of these case has laid down that a person would be refused relief even under a subsequent! Legislation, if his conduct was blameworthy previously. In this view of the matter, the past conduct of the petitioners has no relevance for determining their entitlement under the new statute. Original Sin sticking till Eternity is a concept of Christianity but it has no application for determining temporal rights of people. Of course, it has no place under the Islamic Law. The conduct of the individual is to be judged in its own context. One sin is not to be destructive of another act or conduct. Each is to be determined on its own merit. Therefore, by all cannons it is not permissible to deny relief to the petitioners by reference to discretionary jurisdiction of this Court if they are otherwise entitled to under the law simply on the ground) that they have been previously found to be blameworthy. Consequently, each of these petitions has to be taken up individually to determine as to whether the petitioners are entitled to relief on the basis of the new statutory provisions which they claim to be in their favour.
13. Before these petitions are taken up relevant provisions of the statutes and the scheme may be reproduced for facility of reference.
' Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
' Section 10. Power of Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel allotment.-If the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that an allotment has been obtained by any person by means of fraud or false representation then without prejudice to any other penalty to which such person may be liable, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order cancelling the allotment or reducing the area of the land allotted or such other order as he may deem fit.
' Section 11. Power of Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel or terminate allotment or to amend or vary terms of allotment.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, but subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writting, cancel or terminate any allotment or lease made under a Scheme or under this Act, or amend or vary the terms of any such allotment or lease. Provided that no order under this subsection shall be passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without giving the person affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(2) If any allottee, lessee-holder or occupant of any land acquired under this Act by reason of lack of a valid allotment order or lease or on account of an order made under subsection (1) is not, or ceases to be entitled to the possession of such land, he shall, when so required by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, surrender, the possession thereof to the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf.
(3) if any person required under section 2 to surrender possession of land, fails to do so, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, or any person authorised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf may notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, eject such person and take possession of the land and may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary for the purpose."
14. Section 14-A was added by Act LV of 1973 which provides as follows "14-A. Where on the information of a claimant about bogus or fraudulent allotment of land, the information has been proved to be correct and the land so acquired has been cancelled and resumed by the competent authority, the resumed land shall be allotted to the informant, to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same Province."
' A memorandum No, 24-POL/74 was issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 9th January 1974, in which it was provided that "In accordance with the directive of the Federal Government the following instructions are issued for the disposal of unallotted rural agricultural land, by occupants, on the following terms and conditions (1 All unallotted available rural evacuee agricultural land shall be offered to the persons who have been in actual cultivating possession thereof for a period of at least four harvests preceding 15-6- 73 upto the extent of 121 acres. In case any other land is held by such occupant on the basis of an independent right, such holding shall be taken into account for determining the maximum limit specified above
2. The concession to purchase land contemplated in the preceding paragraph shall be extended only to those occupants whose total holding including the land intended to be purchased
(i) does not exceed subsistence holding, i,e, 121 acres ;
(ii) Land has not been withdrawn under any judicial order of a competent authority ;
(iii) A claimant informer has not submitted information in respect of such land under section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Where on the information of the claimant about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land, the information has been proved to be correct and the land so acquired he has been cancelled and resumed by the competent authority the resumed land shall be allotted to the informant to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the Punjab subject to his entitlement."
' Ordinance XV of 1974, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, was promulgated to be effective from 1st of July 1974. In pursuance of this Ordinance, the Government of Punjab, Board of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Wing, issued a Memorandum No, 915 POL/74 dated 20th November 1974 to the following effect : "In pursuance of Proviso to section 3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Ordinance, 1974, the following instructions are issued for the disposal of unallotted occupied rural evacuee agricultural land, on the following terms and conditions
(i) All unallotted rural evacuee agricultural land shall be offered to the persons who have been in actual cultivating possession thereof for a period of at least four harvests preceding 15-6-1973 upto the extent of 124 acres. In case any other land is held by such occupant on the basis of an independent right, such holding shall be taken into account for determining the maximum limit specified above ' The concession to purchase land contemplated in the preceding paragraph shall be extended only to those occupants whose total holding including the land intended to be purchased-
(i) does not exceed substance holding within the meaning of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
(ii) The intending purchaser is in continuous possession of the land and no order for ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land.
(iii) A claimant informer has not submitted information in respect of such land before 30-6-1974."
' The above mentioned Ordinance has since been re-enacted as an Act XIV of 1974 (Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 to be effective from 1st of July 1974).
Section 2 repeals vide subsection (1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and, then, provides :
(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall be transferred for disposal to such Officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid.
(3) Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation thereby repealed to which the proceedings relate.
' Section 3 Transfer of property.-(1) All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious, or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government, on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government for disposal :
(a) in the case, of urban properties, by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf, and
(b) in the case of rural properties by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf t ' Provided that agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land : ' Provided further that only so much land shall be offered to such person as does not together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972."
Writ Petition No, 283/R of 1975
14. From the above it would be seen that under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 vide section 10, if an allotment has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may cancel the allotment and vide section 11 subsection (1) he may do so for "other reasons to be recorded in writing". Under subsection (2), if an allottee or occupant of land by reason of lack of availed allotment order on account of an order under subsection (1) is not entitled to the possession of the land, he shall, "when so required by the Chief Settlement Commissioner", surrender the possession. If he fails to to so, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, under subsection (3) eject such person and take possession of the land and may use or cause to be used sucti force as may be necessary. The combined effect of these provisions is that the Chief Settlement Commissioner may cancel allotment, require surrender of possession and, on non-compliance, eject and take possession by force, if necessary. Two points may be noticed, firstly, that it is in the discretion of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel allotment, require surrender of possession from the holder thereof, and he may eject him, by force, if necessary. He may or may not take one or the other step in this discretion. Mere cancellation of allotment would not carry all the steps. Secondly, under section 14 (1-A) where on the information of a claimant about any bogus or fraudulent allotment, the information has been proved to be correct and tae land so acquired ha been "cancelled and resumed" by the competent authority, the "resum land" shall be allotted to the informant. Therefore, if on the proof of Information, the land is cancelled and resumed, then, the resumed land shalt be allotted to the informant. In other words, the land must be cancelled and resumed. "And" is conjunctive and so used, obviously, in the context because the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his discretion may cancel allotment but not resume land, as seen above, for a very valid reason indeed, like that the ex-allottee was given a very small piece of land and the Chief Settlement Commissioner may not like to render him destitute, for, that the small piece of area is so situated amongst other areas that its allotment to an informant may lead to trouble all around. Therefore, when the area is cancelled and resumed, then, the right of the informant would come into being and not otherwise. Now the word "resume" means vide Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition "get or take again or back, recovery or reoccupy". Consequently, if the Chief Settlement Commissioner had exercised his discretion, both, in cancelling the land as well as in so resuming the same, then, the right of the informant would come into being. If the Chief Settlement Commissioner exercises one power and not the other, the right of the informant would not come into being. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, permanent representative of the Settlement Department, has also stated that according to section 14 (1-A) when the land is cancelled and resumed, then, the resumed land becomes available for allotment to the informers. In other words, he submits that if the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not resumed the land the right of the informer would not come into being. He has, however, submitted that when the Chief Settlement Commissioner passes an order that the land is resumed, then, it shall automatically be resumed without taking possession thereof or ejecting the occupant, but he has not been successful in either depriving the word 'resumed' of its ordinary Dictionary meanings of taking back or re- occupying the land, nor has he been able to point out anything from sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, under which the Chief Settlement Commissioner exercises authority in the matter in hand, an independent power of resumption of a special kind.
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 11, clearly lay down a method of taking back or re-occupying the land which would result in resumption of the previously allotted land. There is no other method of resumption. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Settlement Department is not quite right in saying that a proper order of resumption is enough to amount to actual resumption.
' Further, the above provisions stand repealed vide Ordinance XV of 1974 subsequently enacted as Act, XIV of 1975, effective from 1st of July, 1974, except that pending proceedings shall be disposed of according to the above provisions.
' Then vide section 3 of Act XIV of 1975, agricultural land available for disposal, or becoming so shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government to be disposed of by the Board of Revenue under Scheme prepared by the Provincial Government provided that "agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person, unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him", to the extent of making up a subsisting holding. This means clearly that available land shall be sold to any occupant thereof the only disqualification being that there be no order of ejectment against the occupant. The extent of the right is a subsisting holding all told. The purpose of the provision is patent to avoid disturbance and dislocation of occupants of some standing from their petty holdings. For this end in view, available land is to be offered for sale to the occupants, and the Provincial Government is to make a Scheme. It is axiomatic that the scheme has to be in accordance with and subject to the statute and cannot add or vary the qualification, disqualification or extent of the right conferred on the occupant.
' Keeping in view the above provisions and their purpose, each of the petitions may now be taken at serlatum. Writ Petition No, 283/R of 1975 ' Petitioner No, 1, Mst. Suhagi, was found to be a daughter of Mohar Singh vide Mutation No, 51 sanctioned on 21-4-1955 and was allotted 29 Kanals and 6 marlas of land. Seven years later, a Mukhbari application was filed and an Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, held that Mst. Suhagi was not the daughter of the right-holder. He cancelled the allotment, ordered the-land "is open for allotment" and observed that informant's case be-considered on merits. This is vide order dated 3-7-1970. The petitioner applied for purchase on 3-4-1974 and 15-4-1974. The land was, however, allotted to respondent No, 4, another person than the informant who is a respondent No,
5. Her application for purchase was, finally, rejected by the Settlement Commissioner on 9-1-1975 on the ground that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 3-7-1970 cancelling her allotment was final against her and that the new law entitles an informer to allotment of cancelled land. Both grounds are untenable. The fact that the order of cancellation of allotment dated 3-7-1970 had become final had no relevance. The petitioner was not seeking to purchase the land on the basis of that order. In fact that order had deprived her of her ownership and there was no question of seeking to purchase the same. The petitioner's case to purchase the land cancelled from her name has to be determined under the new Statutory provisions of Act XIV of 1975. The other ground, too, has no foundation. Not only respondent No, 4 was not the informer, but section 14 (I-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 confers a right on an informer when the land has been "cancelled and resumed." In the present case, the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-7-1970 had cancelled the allotment alright, but, had not resumed the land either by reoccupying the same or otherwise. Therefore, the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 9-1-1975 is unsustainable and proceeding, as it does on wrong premises of fact and law and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Statute, the same is liable to be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is so declared. He is directed to proceed in accordance with leen This petition is allowed with costs.
Writ Petition 318/R of 1975 ' Petitioner was allotted land measuring 93 kanals 14 marlas in Chak No, 211/R B and 28 kanals la marlas in Chak No, 100/R. B. Out of the former, he gave 58 kanals 14 marlas to the respondent No, 2 in exchange and took the latter's land measuring 51 kanals 12 marlas. The land allotted in Chak No, 21 t/R B. Measuring 28 kanals 18 marlas, he sold to Mehr Diu, Nathe Khan and Badar Din. The entire allotment was cancelled on the ground that the same had been obtained by impersonation by the Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commisioner, who directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to (i) take over the possession of the land and (Ii) not to reallot without prior permission. This is vide order dated 18-7-1967. The petitioner applied to purchase the land on 29-11-1973. His application was, finally, dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 3-3-1975 on the ground that vide para. (2) of Memo. No, 915/POL dated 20-11- 1974, "sale shall be made only in case the land has not been withdrawn under any judicial order of a competent authority", and in the case of the petitioner that has been done by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 18-7-1967. Further, he allotted a part of the cancelled land in favour of respondent No, 1 as an informer and ordered another part to be auctioned and also set aside the mutation of exchange. The petitioner's revision was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 31.3-1975. The petitioner's allotment was cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner on 18-7-1967. The cancelled land was not resumed Therefore, the right of the informer under section 14 (1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 did not come into being. But the entire cancelled land, the petitioner is not entitled to purchase under Act XIV of 1975 for the reasons that he is not in occupation thereof. Part of it he has sold to others who are in possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that he does not press the petitioner's claim to purchase this land and that the purchasers from him have already filed a Writ Petition of their own to assert their right to purchase the land being in occupation for the requisite period and he has no qualsm about that. So to the extent of the sold land, the petitioner has no right. As regards the lard he gave in exchange to respondent No, 2 for the latter's land, the Departmental authorities have set aside the mutation of exchange. The learned .Counsel appearing for the respondent No 2 has also stated that the respondent No, 2 is happy with the return of his own laud. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to purchase the land which he should get by return of his own land earlier given in exchange cannot be given effect to because this lard was not in his occupation for the requisite period, as it was in possession of the respondent No,
2. The Act XIV of 1975 confers right of purchase of land which is occupied by a person. So this piece of land, not being in occupation of the petitioner, the latter is not entitled to. As regards the rest of the land, there is no justification to dispose that of by auction.
The petitioner would be entitled to purchase the same if he has been in occupation thereof for the requisite period under Act XIV of 1975 and it is not quite correct that because o f the order of cancellation of his allotment, he has no right to purchase. His rights have to be determined in accordance with Act XI v of 1975 and any instructions to the contrary cannot obviously override the Statute. Since the case has not been considered in its true perspective, the impugned orders are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for purchase of land, other than the portions which he had sold, or, given away in exchange, in accordance with Act XIV of 1975 and the scheme thereunder. This petition is, thus, partly allowed but the parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ Petition No, 381/R of 1975.
' This petition from the purchasers of the previously mentioned Writ Petitioner must obviously succeed because they are not only bona fide purchasers for value but are entitled to purchase the land in their occupation under Act XIV of 1975. The respondent No, 1 as an informer has no sight.
Neither the cancelled land had been resumed, nor, was be found as an informer at the time of cancellation of allotment by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 18-7-1967. Subsequent certification that he was an informer in ex parte proceedings has no legal basis. Therefore, this petition is accepted with costs and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is directed to sell the land in occupation of the petitioners in accordance with Act XIV of 1975.
Writ Petition No, 148/R of 1976 ' Mutation of inheritance of the estate of Mst. Jewani was entered in favour of the petitioners on 14- 12-1952. It was sanctioned in due course. Allotment of 391 kanals was made sometime in the year 1953. Nearly two decades later, the petitioners were found not to be the heirs and the Settlement Commissioner, exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, ordered that the confirmed allotment of the petitioners "be cancelled forthwith and area resumed". The area so resumed shall be untilized for the compensation of genuine claimants copy of the order be sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sargodha, for immediate necessary action". This is vide order dated 4-11-1971. The land was cancelled from the names of the petitioners on 14-5-1974 and a mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Central Government on 10-11-1974. But the land was not resumed in fact, nor, possession taken away from the petitioners as yet. The petitioners applied to purchase the land in their possession but their application was, finally, rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 21-1-1976 and he ordered allotment to the respondents, if found entitled. The petitioners were refused relief on the grounds (I) that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner on 4-11-1971 (ii) in pursuance of the above land has been cancelled from their name and land resumed vide Mutation dated 10.11-1974 and that they had been dispossessed vide Roznamcha dated 4.3-1975, (iii) petitioners have no locus standi (iv) their earlier application for purchase has been rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 8-7-1974 and that order is still in existence, (v) the application for purchase was out of time and (vi) that a person whose allotment is cancelled, his possession is not valid. Now, it will be seen that the order is based on misreading of record and non-application of the operative statutory provisions. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed that "it is clear that an order of ejectment was pased against them (the petitioners) by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 4-11-1971." This is not quite true. The Chief Settlement Commissioner ordered that the allotment "be cancelled forthwith and area resumed." He passed no order of ejectment. He sent a copy of this order to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for necessary action. The Additional Settlement Commissioner aid not cancel the allotment until 14-5-1974 and resumption I. e. Re-occupation of the land has not taken place. The mere sanction of mutation would not be enough and that too, had taken place on 10-11- 1974. Dispossession by an entry in Roznamcha without actual dispossession is of no consequence either. In any case, these events had come about after the Legislature had conferred right of purchase on the occupants i. e. From the first of July, 1974. Question of petitioner No, 1 having no locus standi, of course, does not arise. The fact that the petitioners' application for purchase was rejected by the Additional Settlemet Commissioner on 8-7-1974 and that order was not set aside by the Settlement Commissioner loses sight of the fact that the Settlement Commissioner had expressly directed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner should consider the case of the petitioners under Paras. 2 and 3 of the Ordinance XV of 1974. The question of the petitioners' application being out of time does not arise because time has been extended repeatedly. Lastly, the fact that the petitioners' allotment was cancelled and, therefore, their possession was invalid has no relevance. Under the Statute, the person has to 'occupy' the land. He does not have to have an order in his favour. If he had that, he would he in possession and in that case, the petitioners would be owners and question of purchase would not arise. Therefore for all these reasons, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 28- 1-1976. It is based on wrong facts and is contrary to law. Therefore, it is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This petition is accepted with costs. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned is directed to act in accordance with law and offer the land in occupation of the petitioners to them for sale per the mandate of the highest Legislature in the land vide Act XIV of 1975 without amiss. Before concluding this order, an observation may be made. These petitioners, who are displaced persons, were allotted land as "grant".
' One does not withdraw a grant. Then, settled persons are not to be unsettled and certainly not by public authorities who are conferred powers to rehabilitate and resettle displaced persons. These unfortunate persons are not to be kept involved in perpetual litigation. Quite clearly, the National Legislature has intended to finish this trauma and has repealed all applicable laws. It has in no uncertain terms said that let those persons who are poor having no more than a subsisting holding be not disturbed in their occupation to that extent, and that the land in their occupation be offered to them for sale. What is there so repugnant that these unfortunate people are to be put to perpetual agony of seeking relief from one quarter to another, and to frustate and thwart clear law, both in its letter and spirit? The authorities concerned may, if so inclined or persuaded, approach this task and exercise their powers in a manner that it helps their Countrymen to remain in peace and tranquillity.
' The petitions as aforesaid, are thus disposed of.