1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-Muhammad Sadiq, his father Mian Nur Khan and his sister's son, Muhammad Hayat, the appellants herein, who are claimant displaced persons from Rampur State (Bharat) had left agricultural lands in that State in lieu of which their claims Were verified for 3550 produce index units (50 acres) in favour of Muhammad Sadiq and for 1775 produce index units (25 acres) each in the case of the other two. Their entitlement certificates (Q. P. R. V) were forwarded to the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) for allotment of lands in the Mardan District. As it was a congested district, the appellants could not get allotment of lands there to the extent of their full entitlement. Muhammad Sadiq was allotted 1850 produce index units only, leaving a balance of 1700 units while Nur Khan and Muhammad Hayat were each given 925 produce index units, with a balance of 850 units left over in each case. By an order dated the 29th of October 1959, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mardan, to transfer the excess unsatisfied units of the appellants to the District of Campbellpur for allottment of land under the Supplementary Rural Scheme. This was done and the appellants were given lands in total adjustment of their unsatisfied claims in Campbellpur District. The relevant mutations, No. 19 in favour of Muhammad Sadiq, No. 18 in favour of Muhammad Hayat and No. 17 in favour of Mian Nur Khan, were duly attested. It is significant to note that in mutation No. 19 there is a note by the Patwari which is also endorsed by the Girdawar, that no part of the land of which allotment was proposed, fell within the limits of the Talagang Municipality. Thereafter, Martial Law Regulation No. 84 of 1960 was promulgated on the 28th of December 1960, which was recon--stituted by Martial Law Regulation No. 89 of 1961 on the 3rd of August 1961. Under this Regulation the ceiling of the claimants was reduced by a new formula under which new declarations had to be submitted by them. As a result thereof, Muhammad Sadiq's claim was reduced to 2060 produce index units and that of Muhammad Hayat and Nur Khan, to 1583 produce index units each. The excess land held by them was duly surrendered. The lands which came to be held by the appellants finally, were recorded in Register R. L. II and Parchi Khataunis were also issued to them which were based on the character of the land as it stood on the 15th of August 1947, showing that they fell outside the limits of the Talagang Municipality. The Assistant Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, Talagang, confirmed the allotment of the said lands in favour of the appellants on the 6th of February 1962.
2. However, .a new development occurred there--after when the Government sought to acquire some land in Talagang for WAPDA for a Grid-Station, which included Khasra No. 271 which had been confirmed in favour of the appellants. On the 1st of August 1963, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner passed orders in exercise of his powers under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, whereby he accorded sanction to the sale of some evacuee land including Khasra No. 271 mentioned seep above which affected 19 kanals of land confirmed in favour of Muhammad Sadiq appellant and 24 kanals, 10 marlas confirmed in favour of Muhammad Hayat appellant in that khasra number. The appellants had earlier applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 16th of April 1963, for exclusion of their land included in Khasra No. 271 from acquisition proceedings without success. A day preceding the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in this behalf, the patwarl of Halqa Tala Gharab submitted a report stating that Khasra Nos. 2747/ 1082, 3451/275, 3440/272, 276, 277, 996, 1000, 1003, 100 2, 179271, 436, measuring 156 kanals, 10 marlas, were situated within the municipal limits of Talagang according to the record of the Town Committee, Talagang, which were allotted to refugees, including the appellants, who held allotments of land againstrural areas. It was suggested in the report that these allotments be cancelled from their names in favour of the claimants who held allotments of urban property and whose claims were still pending satisfaction. It was further, proposed that persons who had been wrongly allotted urban lands in lieu of their rural claims should be given lands in rural areas. On this report the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), Campbelipur, made an order on the 7th of August 1963, couched in two words only as follows:----- - "Review allowed".
3. On the 12th of August 1963, while giving effect to this order the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Talagang, on his own, included Khasra Nos. 433, 1085, 278, 231 and 232 as if they were also covered by the review order, although they were not included in the Patwari's report on which the review order was passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. Simultaneously, by his order dated the 12th of August 1963, the Assistant Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelled the allotment of appellant Nur Khan with regard to Khasra Nos. 996, 997, 999, of Muhammad Hayat in respect of Khasra Nos. 2747/1082, 271/2, 433, 1085, 998, 1000, 1002 and 1003, and of appellant Muhammad Sadiq regarding Khasra Nos. 276, 277, 278, 436-min., 3451/275, 3440/272, 231, 232 and 271/1. The lands thus cancelled from their allotment were transferred to respondents Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10-ex parte without a show-cause notice to the appellants. The appellants moved the High Court in. Writ jurisdiction wherein they challenged the review order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner as illegal. They also challenged the cancellation of the lands which had been permanently settled in their favour and the subsequent transfer in favour of respondents 6 to 10 as also the sale of the land covered by Khasra No. 271 mentioned above, by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in favour of WAPDA. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground that the question whether the land held by the appellants and cancelled from their allotment was urban or rural, was a controversial question of fact which could slot be determined in writ jurisdiction.
4. Leave was granted to the appellants by this Court to consider whether the review order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 7th of August 1963, was passed with jurisdiction and whether the cancellation of the land from the allotment of the appellants was competently done.
5. The first attack made by the learned counsel for the appellants against the review order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner is that it was made in violation of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which provided the source of authority for review jurisdic--tion at the relevant time before its subsequent repeal. Section 20 as it then stood read as follows:---- "20. Review.-(1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Commissioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner may of his own motion within nine months, or on an application made in that behalf, within sixtydays, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm an order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors-in-office: Provided that---- (a)(i) a Settlement Commissioner shall not review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office without first obtaining the sanction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner; (ii)an Additional Settlement Commissioner shall not review an order passed by his predecessor-in- office without first obtaining the sanction of the Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned; (i.e) a Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall riot review an order whether passed by himself or by his predecessor in-- office without first obtaining the sanction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned;
(b) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard; and
(c) an order against which an appeal or a petition for revision has been preferred shall not be reviewed.
(2) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order.
(3) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by an officer or authority under this Act or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time, be corrected by such officer or authority or his successor-in-- office."
6. It is obvious that in the present case the review order was passed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The original order was made on the 6th of February 1962, while the review order was made on the 7th of August 1963 long after the expiry of the limitation period. Again, the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner had not obtained the sanction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was necessary under this provision. The review order was, therefore, patently illegal, apart from the consideration that it was passed ex parte without any notice to the appellants. In fact, the review order which is couched in two words, shows that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not apply his mind at all to the facts of the case before him and deprived the appellants of their valuable rights in a very summary manner, without caring to notice that --the entry in mutation No. 19 mentioned above as also the parchi khataunis issued to the appellants and the entries in Register R. L. II, showed that the lands allotted to the appellants and held by them were outside the limits of the Talagang Town Committee. This was obviously a point in their favour regarding the character of the land. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner while giving effect to the review order added certain khasra numbers, on his own, although they were not covered by the review order. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued with great force that the lands in dispute having been permanently transferred to the appellants vested in them absolutely under section 16 of the Land Settlement Act and could not be taken away from them in the manner a has been done. The sale of Khasra No. 271 made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as evacuee property despite its permanent transfer in favour of the appellants, was equally illegal. We consider that the review order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner being wholly illegal, is indefensible. Similarly, the orders of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner that followed it, by which the allotment of the appellants was cancelled, cannot be sustained in law. The sale of Khasra No. 271 as evacuee property cannot also be maintained, because it had already been transferred permanently to the appellants who thus became its owners in absolute rights. It is the appellants who would be entitled to compensation for the sale or acquisition of the land which came to be owned by them. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 6 and 7, has submitted that the disputed land was obtained by the appellants through fraud as they had misrepresented that the lands in dispute were rural, although they were situated within the urban limits. The Settlement Authorities have not based the cancellation of the lands from the appellants on a finding of fraud on their part, nor have we been able to discover any delegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the appellants in the proceedings before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities in respect of the lands in question.