Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the land in dispute was proposed in the name of Rehmat Ullah, predecessor-in-' interest of the present petitioners at RL-11 Khata No.15 in Mauza Chak Reman, Tehsil and District Dera Ghazi Khan on 20-9-1958 which according to learned counsel for the petitioners is still intact as the same was never cancelled from the name of Rehmat Ullah, deceased. Thereafter, the land in dispute was allotted at RL-11 Khata, No.19 to one Abdul Ghani against his claim and the same was confirmed on 31-5-1961. On a Mukhbari application filed by Mst. Ahmadi Begum against the abovesaid Khata, the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan Division, Multan by exercising powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 cancelled the allotment from the name of said Abdul Ghani vide order dated 15-3-1977. This order was challenged in Writ Petitions Nos.690-R of 1997, 883-R of 1977 and 689-R of 1978 by the persons who claimed to be' vendee/purchaser from Abdul Ghani and while deciding the abovesaid writ petitions the case was remanded to the Notified officer with the direction to pass appropriate order after hearing all the concerned vendees who are 28 in number: Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Secretary (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide order dated 28-3-1990 made the following observations:-- "In the circumstances stated above, there is little doubt that all the 19 allotments appearing in the name of Abdul Ghani against Claim Form No. 316 in District D.G. Khan as mentioned in para.6 above are based on fraud, misrepresentation and . Without entitlement. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the said allotments are cancelled and the land is liable to be resumed. On humanitarian consideration, however, I find that the allotment of this land in favour of the informers would amount to unsetting as many as 228 families. I, therefore, order that the land should be transferred to the respondents purchasers, subject to their option on payment of price @ Rs.100 per P.I.U. As regards, the informers, their petition having succeeded firstly by the order of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan Division and secondly by the present order, their right to get allotment of land against their unsatisfied claim is legally established. Since the resumed land has been ordered to be transferred to the purchasers, they are entitled to get alternative land available anywhere in the Province. It is, therefore, ordered that informers Ahmadi Begum and Haji Amir Hassan should be allotted alternative land to the extent of their unsatisfied claim for which they should give their option in due course."
2. This order has been assailed by the successors-in-interest of Rehmat Ullah, deceased through this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after cancellation of the allotment from the name of Abdul Ghani, Rehmat Ullah was entitled to get the same against his verified claim and the allotment made in favour of the purchasers is not justified. He further contended that the petitioners were never made party despite the fact that the land was allotted in their names in the year 1958 which was never cancelled by any competent authority. Learned counsel further contended that the order dated 28-3-1990 has not been implemented so far in the Revenue Record; the land in dispute was not available for disposal in terms of section 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) and the alleged vendee/purchasers were not entitled to get transfer of the land. In support of his contention learned counsel has referred Ahmed Bakhsh v Mehran and others (1998 SCM R 462), Wali Muhammad v. Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and another (1984 SCM R 1574) and Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (1989 SCM R 50).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for Settlement Department contended that there was long chain of litigation in 32 years between Abdul Ghani and Mst. Ahmedi Begum and the matter went up to the High Court by way of filing three writ petitions but the petitioners did not bother to join the proceedings at any stage which shows that they were not interested in retaining the land in dispute. It is further contended that the name of the claimant never appeared in my Revenue Record due to the fact that the petitioners were not at all interested in getting the possession of the same as throughout this period i.e. 32 years, the petitioners never came forward to claim possession of the land. According to learned counsel for the entries made on Register RL-11 pertaining to the predecessor-in-interest appears to be ante-dated and the petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the impugned order for the simple reason-that they were not party before the Settlement Commissioner and the order was' passed between different parties.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record.
The petitioners got the allotment of the land in 1958. For more than 32 years they kept silent and never tried to get the possession of the land in dispute. The Mukhbari application filed by Ahmedi Begum etc. Against Abdul Ghani was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in 1977 and, thereafter, on the writ petition filed by the purchasers of the land, 228 in number, the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for deciding the same after hearing the parties concerned. The learned Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers' under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 cancelled the allotment from the name of Abdul Ghani with the observation that the allotment was based on misrepresentation and fraud and ordered that the land should be transferred to the respondent/purchasers subject to the option on payment of price @ Rs.100 per P.I.U. The petitioners were not party to that proceedings.
They have not challenged even the order of cancellation of the land from their names as according to them it was never cancelled, but the fact remains that they did not apply before any competent authority and no effort was made to obtain possession of the land which was allotted to them. This writ petition has no merit. However, it is observed that the petitioners if so desire submit application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue for getting allotment against the claim of Rehmat Ullah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and if the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners is covered under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, XIV of 1975, he after getting verification of the same, may pass appropriate order for adjustment of the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law.
5. In the light of what has been discussed above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.