P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑--This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 573/1961, 254/1962, 447/1962, 610/1962 and 169/1963 in which common question of law is involved.

2. In these writ petitions the petitioners are claimants of agricultural land both from agreed and non‑agreed areas. Their claims were verified either under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (III of 1956) or the Sind Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1950. In accordance with their verified claims the Central Record Office issued to them Q. P. R.V's of various product indices units and Fard‑e‑Haqiat for settlement. In Writ Petitions Nos. 573/1961, 254/1962 and 447/1962, the petitioners were settled in District Sukkur while in Writ Petitions Nos. 610/1962 and 169 of 1963 were settled in Districts Dadu and Larkana, respectively, on the basis of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. They claim that there being no cultivated land (Abad) available for Settlement in the said districts they had to be satisfied out of the uncultivated land (Chair Abad) and their produce indices units were calculated in accordance with the then agreed and admitted formula, namely, under three classes of land defined and classified as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin, vide Deputy Commissioner and D. R. C. Sukkur Memorandum No. DRC‑9139, dated 5th September 1959 and DRC‑10204, dated 30th September 1959 and DRC‑PSS‑10601, dated 9th October 1959.

3. The petitioners' case is that on this basis lands were allotted to them and since most of the land consisted of the above‑mentioned categories, they had to work hard and invest considerable amount for improving them' and in making them cultivable. It is alleged that in May 1960, the then Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions issued a Circular No. REH/27‑Sukkur‑60, dated 25th May 1960 to all the Deputy Settlement Commissioners informing them that as far as Sind region was concerned there being no entry in the Revenue Records of the land known as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair‑mumkin, the lands allotted to the claimants on that basis should be re‑assesed as being fully cultivated and their produce indices unit should be calculated as that on cultivated land. It appears that one of the petitioners Mst. Fidai Zuhra challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 220 of 1960 alleging that this order was contrary to the Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957 which was applicable to her case. In that case this Court called for a report from the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions, who by report, dated 3rd August 1960, admitted that he was mistaken in issuing the circular due to misunderstanding and on account of a confusion that had arisen in the dealings of the subject by the Land Commission, West Pakistan, Lahore. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the report Annexure B' at page 35: "The facts of the case acre that in pursuance of the Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957, issued from the Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, the evaluation of Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin soils, wherever they exist in Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions, was made at one fourth, one‑eighth and one‑sixteenth of flow soil. But on receipt of the Notification bearing No. ASR‑4106/47‑LC, dated 5‑1‑1960, from the Land Commission, West Pakistan, Lahore the land allotted to the claimants in excess, under the provisions of the above referred Correction Slip, was being withdrawn accordingly. Being aggrieved with this the petitioners have filed writ petition, in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi. In this connection, it is submitted that it was not clarified by the Land Commission in their Notification, that the above instructions were applicable only 'to the areas resumed from the declarent owners under the Martial Law Regulation No. 64, and not to the land allotted to the Displaced Persons, under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, and thus the confusion had arisen. The matter has now been clarified the Secretary, Land Commission West Pakistan, Lahore, vide his Memorandum No. ASR‑957/60/4252‑LC, dated 14‑7‑1960 (Copy enclosed). Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, has been directed under my letter No. REH/27‑Suk/60, dated 1‑8‑1960 to treat the instruction issued, vide my D. O. letter No. REH/27‑Suk/60, dated 25‑5‑1960 as withdrawn. In view of the facts explained above the grievance of the petitioners stand redressed, and therefore, the above writ petition has become infructuous and may be dismissed." In view of this report the above‑mentioned writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 15th August 1960.

4. The trouble of the petitioners did not end with this. It appears that those petitioners who are from non‑agreed areas submitted their claims under Martial Law Regulation No. 84 and obtained revised entitlement certificates in Form M. R. V.'s Ordinarily under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme their revised entitlement should have been evaluated on the basis of Banjar Jadid, etc., but the Department is revaluing them at par with‑ flow land treating them on full produce index units. In some cases the Department has declined to allow the retention and surrender of the land on the said basis. In the case of claimants from agreed areas the Department has started recalculating the Produce Index units of "Banjar Jadid" etc. at par with cultivable land treating them on full Index Units. In writ Petition No. 169 of 1963, a notice, dated 6‑2‑1963 has been issued to some of these claimants informing that since they are in possession of land in excess of their entitlement they should make a choice and surrender the land in excess with them. The Department in this connection has relied on Correction Slip No. 4‑P‑1, dated 19th January 1962. The petitioners have challenged this action on the ground that they were settled on the basis of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956 read with Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957 and have acquired a vested right and cannot be deprived of the land to their possession on the basis of a Correction Slip issued in 1962 with retrospective effect. They have further challenged the various orders of the Department on the ground that they offend the principle of natural justice.

5. The petitioners further claimed that in accordance with paragraph 26 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme they are also entitled to an increase of ten per cent. over and above of their entitlement if they were unable to obtain Chahi land and with a share in a well in lieu thereof. The petitioners grievance is that this concession is also being with drawn. They have, therefore, challenged these threatened actions of the Department in these writ petitions.

6. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, who was added as respondent No. 5 at his request as a party to these writ petitions has opposed the claim of the petitioners. The Department has raised certain preliminary objections against the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that these were bad on account of multifariousness and further should be dismissed because the petitioners have got an alternative remedy by way of revision to the High Court provided under sections 19 and 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. After hearing the learned representative of the Department we are satisfied that the preliminary objections have no substance. In law it is not necessary for several plaintiffs to join in one suit that they must be interested in the entire relief or reliefs claimed in the suit or in the grounds on which those reliefs are based. Under Order I, rule 1, C. P. C. all persons could be joined in one suit as plaintiffs in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transac tions alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the A alternative, where, if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. It is now a well established rule of law that "subject to the control of the Court, persons can unite as plaintiffs seeking individual reliefs in cases where the investigation would to a great extent be identical in each individual case. The policy of the rule is to avoid needless expenses where it can be done without injustice to any one". In these writ petitions the petitioners have common grievance against the Department about the calculation of their indices units and other previleges and, therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be allowed to join in the same petition to claim a relief in which all of them are interested.

7. Similarly, the objection that the petitioners have got alternative adequate remedy is also not of a far reaching character. . The Scheme under which the petitioners were settled is not covered by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. They were temporarily settled under a Scheme prepared under the Rehabilita tion Act of 1956. The alternative remedy provided by sections 19 and 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, cannot, therefore, be applicable to the facts of the present case. The revision petition to the Chief Settlement Commissioner also is an illusory remedy because some of the petitioners in some of the writ petitions had approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction but nothing has come out.

8. At this stage it will also be convenient to mention that the Department has conceded that paragraph 26 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme is still in force and is applicable both to the claimants from agreed and non‑agreed areas. The apprehension of the petitioners that they would be denied the ten per cent relief granted to them in lieu of Chahi lands has no basis. There is thus no dispute between the parties in respect of the concession granted in lieu of Chahi Land abandoned by the claimants in their place of origin.

9. This brings us to the most important question involved in these matters, namely, whether in Sind area no evacuee land could be allotted as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin in view of the fact that no such classification of soil, as a matter of fact, is mentioned in the Revenue Records maintained in the old Sind Region. The Department's case is that there is no entry in the Revenue Records about Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim in this area. It is contended on behalf of the Department that some of the petitioners were allotted various lands on the basis of mis‑interpretation of Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957, which. in no way was in conflict with the Produce Indices Booklet of the old Sind area. It merely clarified the position that throughout West Pakistan wherever Banjar and Ghairmumkin land existed it can be allotted at the Produce Indices units rates given in the Correction Slip. According to the Department, there are areas in West Pakistan Province in which such land did not exist and special Jamabandis do not contain any record of Banjar and Ghairmumkin lands. The old Sind Area is one of such an area. Therefore, no land in Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions could be allotted as Banjar or Ghairmumkin land specially when it is not shown as such in the special Jamabandis prepared by the Department. It. was strenuously contended on behalf of the Department that the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was not competent to issue instructions contrary to the Scheme and instructions by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner and no ‑such instructions are binding on the Department because in case of conflict the latter are to prevail. The learned representative of the Department, therefore, justified the action of the Department ‑ to withdraw such lands whenever it came to light that they had been obtained in excess of their entitlement because allotment made on the basis of classification of soil not shown in the special Jamabandis, are in excess of entitlement and such excess areas are liable to be withdrawn.

10. As regards second Correction Slip No. 4‑P‑1, dated 19th January 1962, the Department's stand is that the reason for its issue was that the Land Commission, West Pakistan drew the attention of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to the fact that various correction slips are causing misunderstanding particularly the contents of the previous correction slip of 1957, inspire of the fact that such classification of soil did not exist in the old Sind region. Accordingly, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner issued the latest correction slip dated 19th January 1962 in order to set at rest all misunderstanding likely to arise. This according to the Department was hardly necessary and has no material bearing on the decision of the cases under consideration. The Depart ment's contention is that on the plain reading of the corrections slip of 1957, the lands could only be allotted as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin, if it was mentioned in the Revenue Records or the Special Jamabandis.

11. The short question, therefore, for consideration is whether the petitioners/claimants were entitled to the allotment of the lands as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin in Sind area, although such land was neither mentioned in the revenue records nor in‑the Special Jamabandis prepared by the Department. In order to appreciate this point at this stage it would be convenient to mention that the basic idea behind the Settlement ‑ Scheme is to settle proprietors and occupancy tentants from certain areas in India on lands of approximately the same value as that which they have abandoned and left behind., This is quite evident from the introductory Note in the pamphlet known as Produce Indices of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions (1957) issued under the authority of Chief Settlement Commissioner. It will be further noticed that under para. 3, Chapter lI, Part I of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme it is clearly provided that the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan may prescribe scales of allotment in keeping with local conditions. There is, therefore, much force in the petitioners' contention that the Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957 was issued in exercise of this important provision of the Scheme with a view to imple ment the underlying idea behind the Settlement Scheme namely that the proprietors and occupancy tenants from certain areas in India should be settled on land approximately of the same value at which they had abandoned and left behind. It was conceded at the bar that the claim of the claimants from India were verified on that basis.

12. The petitioners' contention is that the Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1, dated 15th August 1957, was added to the footnote to the above pamphlet in order to clarify the basis on which the claimants have to be settled in Sind Region. Note 1 (d) which has important bearing on the decision of this case is in the following words: "Note 1 (d).‑Banjar Jandid, Banjar Qadim , and Ghair mumkin soil wherever they exist in all the districts of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions should be evaluated at one‑fourth, one‑eighth and one‑sixteenth of flow soil of the Taluka concerned respectively." On the plain reading of the above‑mentioned footnote it perfectly clear that the Chief Settlement Commissioner under it has given clear instructions to the Department that wherever the above‑mentioned class of soil is found to exist in the Sind Region it should be evaluated on the scale indicated in it. This inter pretation is fully borne out by the words "wherever they, exist" in the footnote. Had there been no formulae available to determine such soil, the contention of the Department that it was issued on the mistaken assumption that such entries existed in the record‑of‑right and special Jamabandies of Sind area; might have some force. But in this connection Mr. S. M. Raza has referred us to the Circular No. DRC‑9139, dated 5th September 1959, issued by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis sioner Sukkur (Annexure A) which is to the following effect: "It is observed that most of the Mukhtiarkars and A. R. Cs, Rehabilitation and Assistant Mukhtiarkars do not know the Banjar Qadim with the result that people approach the under signed for the definition. The definition of Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim is therefore produced as below for information, guidance and compliance of all concerned.

1. Banjar‑Jadid.‑Land left fallow for consecutive four years is entered as Banjar Jadid if not cultivated in the fifth year.

2. Banjar‑Qadim. If Banjar Jadid not brought under cultivation for further three years i.e., up to the end of seventh year, is entered 'as Banjar Qadim in the eighth year if not cultivated in that year." It was conceded at the bar that this method was in vogue in former Punjab and other areas and is now in vogue in the whole of West Pakistan. In view of this it is difficult to accept the contention of the Department that this phraseology was used only with reference, to the entries in the Revenue Records. On the other hand it appears to us that the object of the above mentioned footnote was to clarify the position because no such entries factually existed in the Revenue Records. This view is fortified by number of circumstances brought on the record. In the first place, immediately thereafter, the lands were settled on the petitioners/claimants on that basis. In the second place, number of circulars were issued by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner of these areas to the Rehabilitation Mukatiarkars in which directions were given to them to settle the land on the claimants on this basis. It would be advantageous to refer here one of such circulars bearing No. DRC/10204, dated 30th September 1959, which is reproduced below; "According to Correction Slip No. 2‑P‑1 of August 1957, to the book of Produce Index Units for Khairpur and Hyderabad Divisions, Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin wherever it exists in all the divisions of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions are to be evaluated at one‑fourth, one eighth and one‑sixteenth of flow soil of the Taluka concerned, respectively. But the words Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim are defined neither in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme nor in the Land Revenue Code. However, the matter was once again discussed with the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad who expressed that the definition of the Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim for former Sind Province is the same which is followed in the former Punjab, as defined in this office Circular No. DRC/9139, dated 5‑9‑1959. As such the instructions con tained in this office No. DRC‑9362, dated 12‑9‑59, and Circular No. 9474, dated 16‑9‑59, may be treated as cancelled. While alloting the Banjar land, units may be evaluated as defined in para. 1 above. The cases if any which have been revised in pursuance of this office Circular No. 9474, dated 16‑9‑59, may be reviewed accordingly."

13. Major Muhammad Ishaque, the learned representative of the Department strongly urged before us that the correction slip in question was issued by some officer who had no knowledge of the conditions in Sind. But the noting of the Department which led to the issue of the said correction slip does not in the least support this contention. The Departmental file placed before us shows that on 26th February 1957, the following note was put up for orders by Mr. Khurshid All Khan, O. S. D. (P. 1) to the Secretary Board of Revenue and Chief Settlement Com missioner, West Pakistan: "The D. F. A. so far as it relates to fixation of produce indices for Chahi Sailabi (Kacha) and Barani soils in Hydera bad Division is correct. To overcome the difficulty in assessing the value of Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghair mumkin kinds of soil in the division, I suggest the following may be added as para. 4. "Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin soils wherever they exist will be evaluated at one‑fourth, one‑eighth and one‑sixteenth of `flow', soil of the Taluka concerned, respectively. Mr. I. U. Khan, the authority concerned approved this suggestion on 20th March 1957, and it was for this reason that the correction. slip in question was issued.

14. The learned representative of the Department has referred .us to a note of the same officer recorded on 24th October 1959, to show that he admitted in this note that‑ "It has now been revealed that no such categories of land stand recorded in Revenue papers of the Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions;" and, therefore, the inclusion of this portion in the correction slip has no meaning whatsoever. The contention of the learned representative of the Department is not borne out from the note referred to by him, which is reproduced below: "Originally produce indices for Chahi, Sailabi (Kacha) and Barani classes of soil were not worked out and incorporated in the Produce Index Booklet for Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions. It was decided in the meeting held at Hyderabad on 18‑2‑1957, that these classes of soil were evaluated. While issuing orders it was suggested as a precautionary measure that provision may also be made for Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin classes' of soil of these Divisions. It was done in view of the fact that such classification is a necessity everywhere because unculturable waste land and land which has remained fallow for a number of years had to be distinguished from other classes of soil. It has now been revealed that no such categories of land stand recorded in revenue papers of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions. The Land: Commission is of the view that the presence of item No. (d) regarding fixation of produce indices for Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin classes of soil is causing a good deal of confusion in the minds of both officers entrusted with the work of land Reforms as also the land owners affected thereby. They have suggested that item (d) at page 54 of the Produce Index Booklet published by them may be deleted." From a perusal of this note it is quite obvious that it was recorded only to meet certain objections raised by the Land Commission. The Land Commission was of the view that the presence of item No. (d) regarding fixation of Produce Indices for Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin classes of soil is causing a good deal of confusion in the minds of both officers entrusted with the work of land Reforms as also the land owners affected thereby. He, therefore, suggested that item (d) at page 54 of the Produce Indices Booklet published by them may be deleted and sought the approval of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. It was in this context that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, agreed to the deletion of this note. The urgency of this step is quite obvious from the fact at page 54 of the Produce Indices issued under the authority of the West Pakistan Land Commission, the footnote in question was also adopted by the said authority and before deleting it he considered it necessary to obtain the approval of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. But this does not in the least mean that at that stage the Chief Settlement Commissioner intended to delete this note from the correction slip added to the pamphlet to the Produce Indices of Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions issued under his authority. It cannot be doubted on the noting referred to above and other circumstances that this deletion has nothing to do with the case dealt with under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement' Scheme. In fact the Land Commission by order, dated 5th January 1960, deleted this item in exercise of their power under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64, but no such step was taken by the Chief Settlement Commissioner till 1962.

15. It will be further noticed that in Writ Petition No. 220 of 1960, filed by Mst. Fida‑e‑Zuhra and 13 others brought to challenge the action of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner by which the land allotted to the claimants was sought to be evaluated on the basis of the deletion made by the Land Commission, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner had to admit in his report, dated 3rd August 1960, that the above‑mentioned instructions were applicable to the areas resumed from the declarent owners under the Martial Law Regulations No. 64 and had nothing to do with the land allotted to the displaced persons under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. In this letter he referred to a communica tion received from the Land Commission, West Pakistan, dated 14th July 1960, in which it was clearly stated that the Land Commission's Notification No. ASR‑4106/59‑

47. LC, dated the 5th of January 1960, applies only to the areas resumed from the declarent owners under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and not to the land allotted to displaced persons under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. In view of this he withdrew his instructions issued by his D. O. letter No. REH/27- Suk/60, dated 25‑5‑1960. In the light of the above discussion it is quite plain that the departmental construction of the words "wherever they exist" was that it referred to the actual existence of such lands in Sind Region and not to the entries in the Revenue Records or in the special Jamabandis.

16. The learned representative of the Department has further referred us to paragraph 29 and paragraph 58 of the instructions contained in Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Para. 29 provides that rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant in accordance with the entries in the special Jamabandis received from the prescribed areas of India. It further provides that classification of evacuee land should be taken into account according to the entries in the special Jamabandis prepared for exchange with India and subsequent variations in the classification of soil should be ignored. But this did not in the least fetter the authority of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Scheme is to be read as a whole. Under para. 3, Chapter II, Part I, referred to above he had ample authority to prescribe scales of allotment in keeping with local conditions. In our opinion, this was done in respect of Sind region and for this reason this para has no prejudicial effect on the petitioners case. Para. 58 relates to collection of preliminary statistics and has no important bearing on the question under consideration.

17. As to the factual position it is quite correct that no entry referring to Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin is mentioned in the land Revenue Records of the Sind Region. But it was admitted at the Bar that lands unfit for cultivation are entered in the land Revenue Records of this region as "Pot Kharabo". These "Pot Kharabos" have been further classified as "Pot Kharabo" cultivable and un‑cultivable. It, therefore, cannot be said that this class of land is not recorded in the Revenue Records of Sind. It may be that they are not described as Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Ghairmumkin but all the same such entries do exist under a different description though of the same nature. It was further brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in 1960 Pakistan Census of Agriculture Vol. II, West Pakistan at page XXVIII `Culturable Waste Area' is described as under: "Culturable waste is the farm area which is fit for cultivation but which was not cropped during the Census year nor in the year before that. Thus, it is the sum total of `Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim". In table 16 at page 147 of the publication the area of the culturable waste land in Khairpur Division, District Jacobabad and District Sukkur is mentioned. The petitioners by referring this document wanted to show that unculturable waste of land is actually in existence in the old Sind Region and, therefore, when the correction slip refers "wherever they exist" it refers to its actual existence and not to the entries made in the Revenue Records or in the Special' Jamabandis.

18. After careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides it seems to us that on the plain reading of the language used in sub‑clause (d) of the correction slip of 1957 it is quite clear that the words "wherever they exist" refer to the actual condition of the soil in the old Sind region and not to the enteries made in the Revenue Records or in the special Jamabandis. Had that not been the case, it was unnecessary for the Department to add these important words only in the footnote to the pamphlet applicable to Sind Region. The learned representative of the Department has failed to draw our attention to the use of any such word in respect of "other areas" in West Pakistan., The only inference from that would be that that was done to obviate the difficulty in evaluating such class of land in the absence of any entry in the Revenue Records or in the special Jamabandis in Sind Region. But since the fundamental basis of settlement was that the claimants should be settled on land of approximately the same value of that which they had abandoned and left behind in India, it was thought necessary to specifically provide for it in the correction slip. In that view of the matter we are constrained to hold that the Department is not justified in re‑assessing the indices value of the lands allotted to the petitioners claimants on any other basis except the one mentioned in the correction slip.

19. We find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Correction Slip No. 4‑P 1, dated 19th January 1962, by which clause (d) of para. 1 was deleted cannot have retrospective effect. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in two decisions, Rehmatullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1963 S C 633) and Fazal Ahmad v. Ziaullah Khan (P L D 1964 S C 494) that modified notification has only prospective and not retrospective operation even if modification had been specifically declared to be retrospective in effect. In view of this clear enunciation of law those petitioners who were settled m Sind Region before coming into force of the Correction Slip dated 19th January 1962, will not be affected by it and their lands will not be 'declared as in excess of their entitlement, on its basis.

20. In the result, subject to the above remarks the writ petitions are allowed. In the special circumstances of this case the parties are to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petitions accepted.