1990 PLP 1172 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record‑ for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Date of hearing 25th September, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Malik Muhammad Zaman and Shah Muhammad Khan were allotted land against their verified claims in different villages. Subsequently, they sold the land to respondents Nos. 1, 2 and

3. On a mukhbiri application filed by the petitioners their allotments were reduced on the ground that these were in excess of their entitlements. The land so withdrawn was allotted to the petitioners. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order of reduction of their allotments. The writ petition was accepted on the ground that before canceling the allotment the vendees had not been given an opportunity of being heard. The matter was then remanded to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh decision. After the remand, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) Bahawalpur reconsidered the case and by an order dated 21‑3‑1973, once again cancelled part of the allotments earlier made to Malik Muhammad Zaman and Shah Muhammad. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed. They again approached the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the order of reduction of their allotments. A learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Settlement ‑Authorities and restored the entire allotments of the respondents. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

2. While setting aside the order of cancellation the High Court was of the view that the allotments obtained by Malik Muhammad Zaman and Shah Muhammad were not in excess of their entitlements but that there were some irregularities with regard to the transfer of the units from one district to another. These irregularities, the High Court thought, were capable of being‑regularised. Thus, it was not a case where their allotments should have been cut down.

3. In support of this petition it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the High Court was not right in holding that Malik Muhammad Zaman and Shah Muhammad had not obtained the allotments in excess of their entitlement. After going through the record we' find prima facie merit in the contention of the petitioners. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. AA./G‑249/S. Leave granted.