' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---We cannot do better than reproduce the Leave Grant Order dated 8-8- 1994 wherein the relevant details bearing having upon the instant case find a specific mention . In chronological order: "Mst. Bhagee was a claimant; she was allotted land in 1952 in Chak No,130/NB, Sargodha and her claim was thus satisfied. She died and was survived among others by Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Nabi. They had the land in question, which is situated in Chak No,124/JB, Faisalabad, allotted in lieu of the claim of Mst. Bhagee, ostensibly on a misrepresentation that Mst. Bhagee's claim had not been fully satisfied. Taj Muhammad and Barkatullah etc. Played the informers and as a result the allotment of the land in question was cancelled by an order dated 19-8-1963. By an order dated 26-6-1965, the Settlement Commissioner directed the land in question to be given to the informers. Later, one Rashid Ahmed Anwar, challenged the order dated 26-6-1965; though his application was rejected yet there were some observations in that order which let the informers to file Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972. That writ petition was accepted by an order dated 11-3-1980 and the informers were allowed to retain the land in question.
"(2) It appears that Bakhsha petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976, claiming that as the occupant of the land in question, he was entitled to its transfer under a scheme framed under Act XIII of 1975. That writ petition too was accepted by an order of the High Court dated 17-1- 1977 and it was held that Bakhsha was entitled to the land in question as occupant.
"(3) The whole difficulty arose because Bakhsha was not made party to Writ Petition No,139/R of 1972 and the informers were not made parties to Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976.
"(4) The writ petition out of which this petition has arisen was made by the successors-in-interest of the informers, their case being that the order dated 26-6-1965 by which the land in question was given to them had attained finality and the order dated 17-1-1977 in Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976 was not binding upon them. The learned Judge in the High Court accetped the writ petition holding that Bakhsha had been guilty of fraud and misrepresentation and that the allotment order in favour of the informers was not open to any legal exception.
"(5) It is maintained that as occupant of the land in quetsion, the petitoner Bakhsha was entitled to get the land in question and this question was rightly so decided in Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976; it is contended also that the order dated. 11-3-1980 in Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972 was not legally binding upon the petitioner or upon the Settlement Authorities. It is maintained also that there was no law in 1965 entitling an informer to the allotment of land merely on the ground of his being an informer.
"(6) Leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to consider the questions of law noticed above.
"(7) In the meantime status quo as to possession will be maintained."
2. Learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had disposed of the case after noticing the pleas raised by and on behalf of the present appellant (who was respondent No,2 in Writ Petition No,26/R of 1983) in para.6 of the judgment under challenge as below: "6 On the contrary, Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate, has argued with good deal of vehemence that the direction of the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 26-1-1976 for putting the disputed property in auction pool was challenged by Bakhsha respondent, through Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976 and his plea was that it should be sold to him in terms of the scheme framed under Act XIII of 1975. This plea was well based and was ultimately allowed. It is also submitted that at the relevant time there was no provision in law for grant/ transfer of land to a particular informer, inasmuch as section 14(1)(a), came into force in the year 1970. The orders passed in favour of the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners holding them to be entitled to the allotment of the land in question as informers were coram non judice. The land in dispute was thus legally available for disposal under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 and had been rightly ordered to be sold to Bakhsha respondent, who had paid the sale price and had become full owner thereof."
' It was in the succeeding para.7 that the above-quoted pleas were repelled and the writ petition was allowed. This paragraph reads thus: "7 In my view, this writ petition must succeed. It is true that prior to the introduction of section 14(1)
(a) a Mukhbar did not have a statutory right for transfer of the land unearthed through his Mukhbari application. However, there was no bar in the way of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to pass a specific order in a given case that the land cancelled as a result of the Mukhbari be given to the Mukhbar in lieu of his outstanding units. This is exact what has happened in the instant case.
The predecessors-in-interests of thepetitioners having been adjudged to be entitled to the allotment of the land in question, after acceptance of their Mukhbari application had earned a vested right to its allotment, which, in due course, was made in their names vide Annexures-C to E (copies of relevant Khata R.L.II). Thus, the land stood finally settled upon the predecessors-in- interests of the petitioners and was not available for auction. The fact that the petitioners had become owner of the land in question was well within the knowledge of Bakhsha respondent, a resident of the same village and yet he chose to conceal this from the Settlement Authorities and agitated for an order for the disposal of the said land through auction. Having failed to achieve his object, he filed a writ petition in which he again suppressed the relevant facts. He also deliberately failed to implead the petitioners as party and thus succeeded in obtaining a favourable order. The petitioners not being party to the said writ petition are not bound by the judgement rendered therein. Bakhsha respondent, cannot be permitted to take benefit of this own fraud/ misrepresentation. Be that as it may, the land in question was not available for transfer in his name through sale and the order directing such transfer in his favour is, therefore, coram non judice."
3. It appears that the petitioner succeeded in obtaining allotment of 2 acres of land in his name as a displaced person from India in Chak No,124/JB, Tehsil and District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). He was also in possession of surplus land measuring 11-Kanals and 17-Marlas comprising Killas Nos.14/1 and 15/2 of Square No,30 of this Chak. The above mentioned 11-Kanals and 17-Marlas of land was put in the auction pool by the then Additional Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 26-1- 1976. He and others made Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976 which was allowed on 17-1-1977, alongwith other matters, recognizing his 'right' under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (No,XIV of) 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Further, the learned Settlement Commissioner proceeded with sale of the excess land to the petitioner vide order dated 17-11-1979 after realizing the transfer price of Rs,11,800 which fact seems to be the sheet anchor of his case here.
4. Mr. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this appeal, has contended that (1) as an occupant of the land in question his client was entitled to the same and that it was rightly so decided in Writ Petition No,102/R/1976; (2) order dated 11-3-1980 in Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972 was not binding upon him or even upon the Settlement Authorities and (3) that there was no law in 1965 entitling an 'informer' to the allotment of land on his such status simplicitor. According to him, neither an informer had any right to claim properties similarly placed as the disputed parcel of land before 1965 nor he could successfully invoke the writ jurisdiction of the superior Courts. He has specifically relied upon Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir, Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan (PLD 1964 SC 793) and Ch. Zahoor Elahi v.
Director, Anti-Corruption and 2 others (PLD 1975 Lahore 532) in that behalf. He was also of the view that sale of the disputed land in favour of his client way back in the year 1979 has the effect of 'settlement' of his client and that he cannot be 'unsettled' at this late stage of Settlement Operations.
5. Contrarily, Mr. Ch. Muhammad Hussain learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondent, has supported the impugned judgment whole-hogg with the submission that the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that since his clients felt aggrieved of certain observations made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 16-3- 1970, they successfully impugned the same in Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972. (judgment dated 11-3- 1980 refers) with the result that they were held entitled to retain the allotment of the property in question. Further, the respondents made an application before the AC who submitted a report in that regard on 26-12-1979. When they came to know that appellant Bakhsha had succeeded in obtaining the transfer of the property in Question by depositing the sale price thereof i,e, Rs,11,800, in pursuance of the order dated 7-11-1979 of the A.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner. This order was passed purportedly in pursuance of the judgment dated 17-1-1979 in Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976. As the respondents-side did not succeed in its efforts to secure the implementation of judgment dated 11-3-1980 in Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972 from the AC/Additional Settlement Commissioner on 27-1-1982, the hearing of Writ Petition No,26/R of 1983 was in order and so is its decision dated 6-12-1992, under appeal now (Underlining is for emphasis).
6. We have considered the argument addressed at the Bar and have also gone through the relevant material with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no need for entering into any detailed discussion of the general submissions made by and on behalf of the appellant.
Suffice it to say that the question with regard to appellant's entitlement or otherwise under section 3 of the Act will rule the lis. This section reads thus: "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 institutious, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of 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: "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 meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
"(2) The agricultural land temporarily allotted under any of the aforesaid Acts or Regulations to a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir State or to such other person as the Federal Government may determine who is not in cultivating -possession of the allotted land, shall be offered for sale to such allottee unless an order of cancellation of allotment has been passed against him in respect of such land: "Provided that only so much land shall be offered to such allottee as does not, together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972: "Provided further that the temporary allottee or other person who purchases the land so offered to him shall not eject the tenant from such land except on the ground that he has failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of his tenancy; "Provided further that, in the event of a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir State or any of his succeessors-in-interet being repatriated to that State, he shall pay to the Provincial Government the price of the land held by him at the rate ascertained by that Government."
There is force in the plea being raised on behalf of the other side that to succeed in these proceedings the appellant has to establish that he was in possession of the disputed parcel of land for the last 4 crops in terms of section 3 of the Act. It is not the case of the appellant that (1) either he had made the informers as party to Writ Petition No,102/R of 1976 or (2)(a) that the land was available under section 3 of the Act and (b) that Writ Petition No,138/R of 1972 was pending decision in line with the afore-quoted provisions of the Act. Further, the appellant not being in possession of the disputed parcel of land for the last 4 crops as mentioned above, the very basis of his claim for retention of the same stands knocked out.
7. As regards the plea of the appellant that the contesting respondents were not entitled to the allotment in question as informer in that at the relevant time there was no law in existence favouring grant/transfer of land to a particular informer, we are inclined to the view that the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that" there was no bar in the way of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to pass a specific order in a given case that the land cancelled as a result of Mukhbari be given to the Mukhabar in lieu of his outstanding units. This is exactly what has happened in the instant case. The predecessors-in-interests of the petitioners having been adjudged to be entitled to the allotment of the land in question, after acceptance of their Mukhbari application had earned a vested right to its allotment, which, in due course, was made in their names vide Annexures-C to E (conies of relevant Khata R.L. II). Thus, the land stood finally settled upon the predecessors-in-interests of the petitioners and was not available for auction... ...
Bakhsha-respondent cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own fraud and misrepresentation.
Be that as it may, the land in question was not available for transfer in his name through sale and the order directing such transfer in his favour is, therefore, coram non judice. "(Underlining is for emphasis).
8. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.