1. K. E. CHAUHAN, J.-It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were allotted land in excess of their entitlement under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958 hereinafter referred to as Act XLVII of 1958. Bheeka etc. (claimants displaced persons whose claims had not been fully satisfied), laid information about the aforesaid excess which was consequently cancelled from the names of We petitioners. The petitioners then applied to purchase the excess land under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (:Repeal) Act XIV of 1975, hereinafter referred to as Act XIV of 1975. Theirs application was dismissed by the learned member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 6-3-1978. The learned member wan of the view that as the excess land had been cancelled on the basis off the information supplied by the informants, therefore, they had a preferential right as against the petitioners to get the same against their pending claim as informants under sub--section (1-A) of section 14 of Act XLVII of 1958 read with subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
2. Ordinance XV of 1974 (later replaced by Act XIV of 1975). The petitioners filed a writ petition (being Writ Petition No. 584-R of 1978) but without any success as it was dismissed by a, learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 15-5-1978. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same.
2. That the land was in excess with the petitioners has not been disputed before us nor the fact that Bheeka etc. (not party in the case) who had an unsatisfied claim were the informants on the basis of whose information the land was cancelled by the authorities concerned. The only point argued was that the petitioners had a right to purchase the land as laid down in section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 which was promulgated on 28-1-1975 but was retrospective with effect from 1-7-1974. The contention has no merit for various reasons. Section 3 to which reference has been made reads as follows :- "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 imme--diately before the; repeal of 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 dispose :-
(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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Regulation, 1972.
(2) The agricultural land temporarily allotted under any of the aforesaid Acts or Regulations t a displaced person from Jammu & Kashmir State or to such of or person as the Federal Government may determine who is not in cultivating possession of the allotted land. Shall be offered forsale 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 purchase the land so offered land except on the ground that he has failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of his tenancy.
5. Provided further that, in the event of a displaced person from Jammu & Kashmir State or any of his successors-in-interest 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 -P Government.
6. A perusal of the above will show that the right to purchase such land is not so wide and unconditional as is being suggested by the learned counsel. It is hedged by certain limitations and qualifications which are contained in sections 2 and 3 as we shall presently explain. According to the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such persons unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land. In the instant case, the record shows that by means of an order dated 15-5-1974, passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) prior to the enforcement of Act XIV of 1975, the land in dispute was resumed and informants were held entitled to get the same according to their eligibility. A copy of this order has not been filed by the petitioners but narration of these facts duly exists in the order of the learned member of the Board of Revenue which was not taken exception to on factual plane before us, and nor was anything to the contrary brought to our notice. ;s against the aforesaid all that the petitioners averred in para. 6 (a) pf their writ petition, to put it in their own language was that "the petitioners /have never been ejected from the land concerned and the petitioners ate still in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, under the relevant law the petitioners are entitled for the purchase of the property concerned". This averment clearly shows that the plea of the petitioners was that they have never been ejected from the disputed land and not that no order of ejectment had been passed against them. Similarly it was not pleaded that prior to the enforcement of Act XIV of 1975 no direction for cancellation of land from the names of the petitioners or no allotment/transfer in favour of the informants concerned: had been made. In that state of affairs since the petitioners have not! Shown that they fulfilled the requirements of the above-mentioned provision of law, they have not made out any case for the purchase of the land. Section 2 of Act XIV of 1975 is headed as "repeal of certain laws" and subsection (1) of that section tabulates those laws which were being repealed thereby. Act XLVII of 1958 is one of those laws. Subsection (2) of section 2 then stated that "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 stand transferred for final 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. Subsection (3) laid down that "Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of sub--section (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate". Sub--section (4) stated that, "The final order passed under subsection (3) .Hall be executed by the Board of Revenue of the Province in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings related". If all these provisions of law are read together it becomes quite clear that subsection (1) of section 3 will apply only to such land which becomes available as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, which principle if applied to the facts and the circumstances of the present case will mean that the land will become available after the proceedings regarding entitlement of the informants, if any, which were pending at the date of the repealed law were finalised. If as a result of those proceedings the land is directed to be given away to the informants concerned then that is not a land which has become available for being given to an applicant under the first proviso to sub--section (1) of section 3 ibid. In the instant case, a perusal of the order of Mian Waheeduddin Rathore, Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Punjab, dated 21-2-1976, shows that on complaint of the informants, the proceedings had been taken up as far back as in year 1959 and it were those pending proceedings which vis-a-vis fixing the entitlement of informant were finalised prior to the enforcement of Act XIV of 1975. The said Act itself saved the effect of the pending proceedings including the rights of the informants under the repealed enactment namely subsection (1-A) of section 14 of Act XLVII of 1958, which laid down that "Where, at any time before or after the commencement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 (LV of 1973), any person has furnished or furnishes information about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land and the information has been or is proved to be correct and such land has been or is resumed by competent authority upon cancellation of the allotment of such land, the informant shall be entitled-
(a) If he is a claimant, to allotment of the resumed land to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same Province or, if the resumed land has already been allotted to some other person, to the allotment, to the said extent, of any other land of his choice available for allotment in the same Province ; and
(b) in any other case, to a cash award of such amount as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may decide."
7. As the proceedings of the informants concerned to claim the land ine dispute were "pending proceedings" at the time of the repeal of that Act fore the purpose of implementing the decision about their entitlement which had already been given effect to on 15-5-1974, therefore, the concession which was bestowed on certain occupants in subsection (1) of section (3) of Act XIV of 1975 was not available to the present petitioners. We hold accordingly.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for the purchase of land or for interference in the order of the High Court on any legal or factual plane. The petition is dismissed. s. A. H.