1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The parties agreed at the leave stage that the case be remanded to the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner (Lands), Gujranwala, for a fresh inquiry and adjudication of their respective claims for allotment of the land in dispute in accordance with the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petition is, accordingly, converted into an appeal and the case is remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for disposal in the light of the following facts brought to the notice of the Court by the parties counsel.
2. Rehmat Ali, appellant, had originally obtained allotment of agricultural land in village Rakh Bawali, Tehsil Shahdara, District Sheikhupura. Latter on, he got the allotment cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that 1986 produce index units verified against his claim No. 12670 be transferred to Gujranwala as an informer. Reference was made to the letter of Mr. S. A.
3. Latif, Under Secretary, Board of Revenue, (No. 2052/56/3173-R(G) dated 18-5-1956) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. Copy of an entry in the Dispatch Register of the Patwari was also produced showing that the produce index units of the appellant were forwarded to village Dhulley, district Gujranwala. On 2-11-1956 the land in dispute was along with some other area allotted to the appellant as an informer under the orders of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. Subsequently he had the bulk of the land cancelled from his name and transferred 1229 produce index units to different villages as per entries in R. L. II No. 252 of village Dhulley, but retained the allotment of the land in dispute to which the respondent laid claim as a sitting allottee of village Dhulley since 1947. The respondent was allotted land against his verified claim which was later on cancelled from his name on the ground that it was situated in urban area. An appeal and revision filed before the higher Rehabilitation authorities having failed he moved a writ petition in the High Court which too was dismissed in 1960.
4. A dispute then arose between the appellant and the respondent as to their respective entitlement to the allotment of the land in dispute. The Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 18th August 1969, cancelled the allotment in favour of the appellant on the report of the Patwari; that the records did not contain any entry of the receipt of the produce index units of the appellant in village Dhulley. The land was thereupon allotted to the respondent against which the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court disputing correctness of the report of the Patwari that his produce index units were not transferred to village Dhulley. The writ petition was dismissed on 22- 10-1969 by a Division Bench in the view that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was based on the report which was not contested before him as incorrect.
5. The appellant thereupon filed C. P. S. L. A. No. 381 of 1969 which as mentioned in the beginning of this order was with the consent of the parties converted into an appeal. We have examined the Roznamcha produced by the Patwari which bears out the finding of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that there was no entry in his Papers regarding transfer of 1986 produce index units of the appellant to village Dhulley. A pencil entry pears in the Roznamcha, but it was apparently made subsequent to the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. There is, of course, the letter of Mr. S. A. Latif which appears to be genuine though nothing can be said about the entry in the Dispatch Register unless the original is seen.
6. What is more significant, however, is that according to the entries in the copy of R. L. II No. 20 of village Rakh Bawali and R. L. No. 50) of village Rachand, the exhausted his total entitlement by obtaining allotments in villages. (f that be the case, the appellant in spite of-being an informer will have no right to obtain allotment of the land in dispute and the allotment made by the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner by his order dated the 18th August 1969, in favour of the respondent shall remain in force. In the alternative it will be necessary to examine all the allotments made in village Dulley after the allotment of the respondent was cancelled. He being a sitting allottee of the village will have a preferential claim against outsiders who get their claims transferred to village Dhulley subsequently. It is claimed that the case of the informer stands on a different footing. We would not like to express any opinion on this point and leave it to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. To decide the issue in accordance with the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme or any other legal instrument applicable to the case.
7. The appeal is allowed and the case remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujranwala, for fresh decision as indicated above. No costs. .