' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---We propose to dispose of abovementioned two civil appeals involving common questions of law and fact, through this common judgment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals in the background are that the Rehabilitation Authorities made permanent allotment of land in favour of one Rehmat Ali out of temporary allotment of evacuee land owned by the non-Muslims in Chak No,91/6-R, District Sahiwal, in the name of Nizam Din and Umer Din son of Fatta as old tenants of non-Muslim evacuee. Umer Din preferred a revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, who vide order dated 25-6-1953 directed that Umer Din should be allotted land according to his choice in a compact block from his temporary allotment and in consequence thereto, he was allowed to retain 1-1/2 killas out of his temporary allotment. Subsequently, one Hashmat Ali challenged the allotments of evacuee lands in the abovesaid Chak through a revision petition and the then Rehabilitation Commissioner (Mr. I.U.
Khan) vide order dated 31-5-1955 made the following directions:-- ' "As the evacuee area is limited in this estate, rateable distribution will have to be resorted to. I, however, find that the recommendations of the D.R.C., Montgomery are not in accordance with para. 11, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme I, therefore, send back the case to the D.R.C.
With the directions that the allotment in this Chak should be revised, rateable distribution should be made a maximum limit should be prescribed and then allotments made in the light of the instructions given in paragraph 11, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. These instructions lay down the definite principle that the temporary allotment of a refugee up to a certain limit should not be disturbed if it is covered by the claim form. The first thing, therefore, will be for the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner to say what should be this limit which should be between 5 and 8 acres according to the circumstances of this estate."
3. The above order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner was challenged by Umer Din and others before the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 and a learned Single Judge in the High Court having traced out the history of the case and considered the entitlement of contestants in detail, allowed the writ petition with the following observations:-- ' "The order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner is unsatisfactory for the reason that he has not dealt with the case of each of the petitioners before him. He had held that the order of Mr. I.U. Khan was not implemented to the case at least in respect of respondents Nos.2 and 3. It is possible and even probable that the order was implemented in the case of others also. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner should, therefore, have examined each case to see whether the order of Mr. I.U. Khan was implemented or not. It was not open to him to say that confirmation of Agricultural land cannot be quashed, because the order of Mr. I.U. Khan dated the 31st of May, 1955 has remained unimplemented. The validity of his order has not been challenged by anyone. It was for him to see that it was implemented, because it was an order passed after notice to the allottees. The case of the petitioners also is that the A.R.C. In making the order, dated the 13th of September, 1961 was implementing the order of Mr. I.U. Khan as clarified by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. These matters should have been gone into carefully before setting aside the orders of A.R.C. And Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. If they cannot be said to have had no jurisdiction in making the order."
3. In pursuance of the directions contained in the above judgment of Lahore High Court, the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 19-12-1969 sent the case to Deputy Settlement Commissioner for implementation of the order dated 31-5-1955 passed by Mr. I.U. Khan.
Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement/Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 214-1971 disposed of the matter. However, some of the parties being dissatisfied with the order of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner filed an appeal which was heard by the A.D.C.(G) in exercise of his powers as Settlement Commissioner and while maintaining the order passed by the Deputy Settlement/Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Mst. Aisha Bibi then preferred a revision before the Settlement Commissioner (Land) who while accepting the same vide order dated 29-12-1972 directed that Killa No,20/16/25 be restored in the names of its allottee except an area of 2 Kanals which was allowed to be retained by Umer Din. The Settlement Commissioner further directed that Nizam Din would get land equal to 40 units out of the temporary allotment in his possession. The Assistant Commissioner, exercising the powers of Collector/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) in pursuance of the order dated 31-5-1955 passed by Mr. I.U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner, submitted report for rateable distribution of the disputed area between the parties and in the light of the said report, the Additional Settlement Commissioner disposed of the appeal of Muhammad Ramzan and others vide order dated 23-7- 1977 which was challenged before the Lahore High Court through Writ Petitions Nos.1031-R, 1032-R and 1226-R of 1977 and a learned Single Judge through a common judgment dated 13-2-1993 allowed the writ petitions with the following conclusion:-- "4. It is submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner had held that Umar Din son of Fateh Din alias Fatta (petitioner in W.P. No,1326-R of 1977), besides three Kanals of land purchased by him from the Central Government (which was now to be counted towards the satisfaction of his claim of 39 PI Units) should be given two Kanals more out of Khasras Nos.16 and 25 of Square No,20. In fact, the area purchased by him was two Kanals nine Marlas. He is a petty claimant and should not be made to suffer the loss of eleven Marlas of land. This position is not controverted by the other side.
' Likewise, it is submitted by Noor Muhammad and others, legal representatives of Dullah(Petitioners in W.P. No,1031-R of 1977) that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 directed the cancellation of only two Kanals of land out of Khasras Nos. 16 and 25 of Square No, 26 from their names for the benefit of Umer Din and, therefore, there was no justification for the Additional Settlement Commissioner to cancel any other land of these petitioners allotted to them on 19-11-1966 under the orders of the Rehabilitation, Commissioner dated 31-5-1955 for the benefit of Nizam Din. It is further submitted that their allotment could be examined qua those who were party in the above writ petition, and while the Additional Settlement Commissioner had upset their allotment for the benefit of respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to 26 (in Writ Petition No, 1031-R of 1977), in any case, the allotment of 14 Kanals in Khasras Nos.16 and 25 of Square No,20 should not have been touched. There is force in this contention. This Court while allowing Umar Din son of Fateh Khan alias Fatta to pick up two Kanals of land out of the above-noted two Khasras had not given direction for cancellation of the remaining 14 Kanals from the names of these petitioners. This land should have been allowed to remain intact with the petitioners. The remaining allotment only should have been subjected to scrutiny.
' Likewise, the, grievances of Nazir Ahmad etc. (petitioners in Writ Petition No,1032-R of 1977) have also not been gone into carefully by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner..
5. Resultantly, all these writ petitions are accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority. The case is sent back to the A.C./Notified Officer, Sahiwal, who shall hear the parties of these writ petitions and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore.
6. The parties shall appear before the A.C./Notified Officer, on 6-3-1993. The matter shall be finalized within a period of two months.
7. In order to put an end to this prolonged litigation, learned counsel for the parties have given an undertaking that the parties in these three cases shall deliver possession of the land to the allottees to whom it is finally allotted in consequence of the decision of the A.C./Notified Officer, on or before 15th June, 1993. No costs."
' Learned counsel for the appellants being dissatisfied with the manner of disposal of the matter by the High Court in the writ petitions and the directions contained therein, filed separate petitions for special leave to appeal before this Court in which leave was granted. The leave granting order, dated 1-6-1994, reads as under:-- "It is stated that allotment of the Evacuee Agricultural land in Chak No,91/6.R, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, was to be made in accordance with the directions given by Mr. I.U. Khan. Rehabilitation Commissioner, which direction had been upheld by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. However, the order of the learned Single Judge has not been kept in mind while passing the said direction. For that reasons his order is not sustainable.
' Leave to appeal is granted to examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. During pendency of appeals status quo will be maintained."
' Learned counsel for the appellants while narrating the facts in the background in detail has contended that the directions contained in the order dated 31-5-1955 passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner and maintained by the High Court vide judgment dated 2-11-1965 passed in Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 were allowed to attain the finality which remained unimplemented in true prospect. Consequently, the Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 23-7-1977 while giving effect to the said orders committed no illegality. In nutshell, the learned counsel submitted that the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge in the High Court in the impugned judgment would amount to recall/review the earlier judgment of the High Court in the abovesaid writ petitions through which the manner of allotment of land determined by the Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 31 5-1955 was approved.
' Ch. Noor Elahi, learned counsel representing respondents in Civil Appeal No,484 of 1994 on the other hand, has contended that the direction given in the judgment of the High Court under challenge was neither in conflict to the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner nor of the judgment in the Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 and consequently the same would not call for interference by this Court.
' The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeals is that since the method of allotments of the evacuee land in the Chak in question was not followed in terms of the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner passed in 1955 and the claim of appellants was not satisfied accordingly, therefore, the order dated 29-7-1977 passed by the notified officer giving effect to the order dated 31-5-1955 was not qustionable and the interference of High Court in the matter was not justified. However, the learned counsel has not been able to convince us that in what context the judgment of the High Court under challenge was in conflict to the earlier judgment delivered in Writ Petition No, 2023-R of 1962 and how the order dated 27-5-1977 passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner was not in consonance to the directions contained in the said judgment of High Court. This is notable that Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 31-5-1955 directed for revising the allotment in the Chak in rateable distribution prescribing a maximum limit in the light of instructions given in paragraph 11, Part H of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956. The field staff while pooling together all evacuee land without taking into consideration rights of temporary allottees distributed the land amongst the claimants. Under the above Scheme, the claimants were required to be satisfied in the following manner:--
(a) The claims of sitting allottees were to be satisfied from their temporary allotment and if claim of such allottees remained unsatisfied fully, the remaining units were to be adjusted from the common pool
(b) The surplus land then to be given in satisfaction of the remaining units including the local owners in rateable distribution.
' In pursuance of the order dated 31-5-1955 of Rehabilitation Commissioner, the subordinate Rehabilitation Authorities revised the allotment of land in the Chak which led to the litigation between the parties and a number of appeals were filed before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner who disposed of the same vide order dated 22-11-1961 and remanded the case to the A.R.C. For fresh scrutiny of the claims of some of, the parties. This order of A.R.C. Was challenged through separate revision before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner who vide order, dated 10th of April, 1962 allowed the revision petitions with the observations that the order of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, for probing the matter in terms of paragraph 11 of Part II of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme could not be allowed to operate retrospectively and that the order was in contravention of section 13(4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956.
' The order of Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner having found not satisfactory by the High Court being not in conformity to the order dated 31-5-1955 passed by Mr. I.U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation Commissioner, disposed of Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 vide judgment dated 2-11- 1965 with direction to the Additional Commissioner to deal with the case of petitioners before him and in the writ petition.
' The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on remand, instead of confining himself to the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No,2023/R of 1962 vide order dated 23-7-1977 re-opened all allotments made in the Chak with the observation that the same were not made in the light of instructions in para. 11, Part H of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, 1956 as directed by Rehabilitation Commissioner in his order dated 31-5-1955 and once again opened the gate of litigation, therefore, the High Court having attended the grievance of Umer Din son of Fatta, Noor Muhammad and other legal heirs of Dullah and Nazir Ahmed and others petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.1326-R. 1031- R and 1032-R of 1977 respectively, concluded that order dated 25-7-1977 of Additional Commissioner, impugned in the writ petition caused injustice to them and consequently remanded the case to the notified officer for passing a fresh order in the light of directions contained in the judgment. We have noticed that the parties, through their learned counsel, have given an undertaking before the High Court that the possession of the land would be delivered in consequence to the decision made by the notified officer with the understanding to bring this prolonged litigation to an end.
It appears that writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with concurrence of the parties and they had no objection for the remand of the case to the notified officer for disposal of the same in terms of the direction contained therein Keeping in view the nature of dispute between the parties, we find that judgment of the High Court under challenge was neither in conflict to the earlier judgment passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No,2023-R of 1962 nor the Additional Commissioner was justified to proceed beyond the directions in the said judgment which were confined only to the extent of petitioners in the said petition and re-opening of the whole matter on the basis of order passed by Rehabilitation Commissioner on 31-5-1955 was not justified. This is not ignorable that a lot of changes had taken place in the intervening period, therefore, it would not be proper to allow the parties to enter into fresh litigation once again, after passing half a century. We having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, have come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the judgment of the High. Court and consequently would not be inclined to interference in the matter.
' For the foregoing reasons we dismiss these appeals with no order as to costs.