- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on the following allegations: The petitioner alleges to be a displaced person from West Punjab which is now in Pakistan. Before the parlition of the country, the petitioner purchased land measuring 11 3/4 killas for a sum of Rs. 17,460/- from a Muslim named Allah Yar Khan son of Jamal Din in Chak No 32 (J. B.) Tehsil and District Lyallpur by means of a registered sale deed dated 23rd of May 1946 and the relevant mutation No. 134 had also been duly sanctioned by the Tehsildar in the petitioner's name. The said mutation was. however, later cancelled by the Collector on 9th of June 1947; the petitioner alleges that this cancellation was illegal. A second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector was still pending before the Commissioner, Multan Division, when the country was partitioned in august 1947 and the petitioner was compelled to migrate to India. The Custodian department in India after fully satisfying itself about the petitioner's title over the aforesaid land allotted to the petitioner 10 standard acres and 10 1/2 units of land in village Bhoewal in lieu of the above area. Allotment sanad No. AMI/201/69 dated 8th of July 1956 is relied upon by the petitioner in sup-port of his allotment and he submits that in due course of time when evacuee property was acquired by the Centra! Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, proprietary rights, in respect of the said land, along with other area allotted to the petitioner, were conferred on him by the Managing Officer on behalf of the President of India, vide sanad dated 16th of April 1957. Long after the conferment of proprietary rights, the Assistant Settlement commissioner (Rural), Punjab, respondent No. 2, without legal authority and competence, cancelled the proprietary sanad of the petitioner by his order dated 17th of May 1958 on the ground that mutation in respect of the sale of land had been rejected by the Collector and the petitioner's appeal against the said rejection had also been dismissed by the Commissioner on 9th of December 1947 i. e. after partition. The petitioner assails this order on the ground that it is based on an erroneous and misleading report recorded by the Managing Officer on 1st or May 1958. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of respondent No. 2 to the Chief settlement Commissioner, Punjab, respondent No. 1, who rejected the same on 28th of May 1958 holding that respondent No. 2 was competent to cancel the proprietary sanad issued by the Managing Officer, in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation) Act. The orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are being attacked in this petition on the following grounds:- (a) The proprietary rights having once been conferred on the petitioner by the authority of the President, the same could not be cancelled or interfered with by the respondents especially when no fraud or misrepresentation was ever alleged or -proved against the petitioner. This could only bo done by the President as held in Civil Writ No 661 of 1957 (Punj) and in Civil Writ No. 216 of 1957 (Punj ). (b) The finding of respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 could cancel the proprietary rights in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 22 of the Act is not legally justified because no appeal against the conferment of proprietary rights has been provided under the said section and no such appeal had ever been filed by any one. (c) Even, on merits it was wrong on the part of the Managing Officer and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to have been influenced by the rejection of mutation No. 134 by the Collector and dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner on 9th of December 1947, The petitioner having migrated to India after partition had no opportunity to pursue his appeal before the Commissioner in. Pakistan and the rejection of mutation was only a ministerial act which could not legally deprive the petitioner of his title over the land created by a registered deed. (d) The petitioner had amply established by documentary evidence that in spite of the mutation orders passed by the Collector and the commissioner the land in question in Pakistan had been treated as evacuee property, and thus as belonging to the petitioner, by the Deputy custodian, Lyallpur, vide his order dated 17th of January 1957. In the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to get the land in dispute in india allotted and transferred to him, and (e) The sale of the land in favour of the petitioner in Chak No. 32 (J. B.)was perfectly legal and the respondents were not competent to ignore it for the purposes of making allotment to, or con-ferring proprietary rights on, the petitioner.
(2.) ON these grounds it is submitted that the petitioner has suffered manifest injustice and an appropriate writ order or direction be issued quashing the impugned orders and restoring the area in question to the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the area cancelled from the name of the petitioner has since been allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who have also been made parties to the present petition. An ad interim order staying the petitioner's dispossession was secured by him from the Motion Bench on 10th of September 1958.
(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is contended that at the time of. general allolment the land account ot the petitioner was wrongly prepared and mutation No. 134 appended with the special jamabandi of Chak No. 32 (J. B,), Tehsil and District Lyallpur, received from Pakistan showing execution of the sale deed was mistakenly taken into account. It is submitted that the petitioner did manage to secure proprietary rights in respect of the allotment in dispute by concealing the fact, that mutation No. 134 was later rejected by the collector by which rejection the land purchased by the petitioner from Allah Yar khan had been reverted to the latter. It is further slated that on a complaint lodged by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 with the Department against the petitioner's allotment his account was checked and the discrepancy discovered. The Managing officer's report referred to by the petitioner was based on the official record and was fully justified. It is also pleaded that no injustice has been done to the petitioner by withdrawal of the excess allotment from him which remained in his possession for more than 8 years. With respect to Civil Writ No. 661 of 1957 (Punj), it is pleaded that this decision has since been reversed in Bara Singh v. Joginder Singh, L. P. A. No. 160 of 1958: (AIR 1959 Punj 370 ). Considering the order of respondent No. 2 to be legal and just, respondent No. 1, it is pleaded, rightly rejected the petitioner's revision.;