1. One Krishan Lal a displaced person was allotted an area of about 508 bighas of evacuee agricultural land in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan. In due course proprietary rights were conferred on him by the Managing Officer and he became full owner thereof. After the conferment of the proprietary rights, Krishan Lal, the original owner, sold his land by various sale deeds from 1957 to 1959 to different vendees. After Krishan Lal had sold the land transferred to him by the Rehabilitation Department to the vendees, it was found by the Rehabilitation Department that his allotment to the extent of 6.131/2 standard acres, equal to about 54 bighas and 9 biswas, was in excess and in accordance with law the proprietary rights to the extent of then aforesaid area were cancelled by the Rehabilitation Department. The order of cancellation is not in dispute.
2. As a consequence of the cancellation of the 54 bighas and 9 biswas from the allotment of Krishan Lal, this much area had to be retrieved by the Rehabilitation Department from the vendees as by that time the original owner had sold away the entire allotted area including the area which was found to be in excess.
3. The Rehabilitation Department retrieved the excess area from the last vendees of Krishan Lal, who purchased the land from him in the sales made by him in the years 1958 and 1959. The persons who purchased from Krishan Lal in the year 1957 were saved.
4. The subsequent vendees were dissatisfied from. the orders retrieving the area which was subject-matter of their sales and. they failed before all the Rehabilitation Departmental authorities. The Rehabilitation authorities found that the only way to retrieve the excess allotment was that the excess land from the last vendees had to be taken and in this manner the last vendees were deprived of their land and the same was taken over by the Rehabilitation Department. This writ petition is directed against the action of the Rehabilitation Department retrieving the excess allotment of Krishan Lal from his vendees who were the last in point of time.
5. Shri H. S. Wasu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has invited my attention to paras 24 and 25 of Tarlok Singh's Manual (pages 152 and 153) and has argued that allotment of evacuee property has to be made to the claimants serial-wise and they have to be allotted land according to seriatim numerical numbers of the Khasra and in this manner allotment was made to Krishan Lal claimant, from whom the petitioners purchased the land. If allotment of Krishan Lal is found in excess then the last khasra numbers in the numerical order have to be withdrawn from him and not on the basis of the last purchasers. According to the learned counsel, the khasra numbers which were sold to them by Krishan Lal are the earlier khasra numbers in the list of khasras which were allotted to Krishan Lal and those khasra numbers would be saved and the latter khasra numbers have to be retrieved from the allotment of Krishan Lal and if paras 24 and 25 of Tarlok Singh's Manual had been followed by the Rehabilitation Department then the land of the petitioners would have been saved and that of the other vendees would have been retrieved and according to the learned counsel this is the correct method of retrieving area from an allottee whose allotment is found to be in excess.
6. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. H. S.. Wasu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The system of making allotment contained in paras 24 and 25 of Tarlok Singh's Manual would be a good guide at the time of allotment so that the Managing Officers or the Custodians who were given the authority to make allotments may not act arbitrarily while making allotments. So these paragraphs were only a good guide for the matter of making proper allotments in a serial order to the various claimants to avoid discrimination or favouritism or allotment in an irregular or haphazard manner. But these paras cannot he brought in aid on the facts of this case as shown above. The rule of law laid down in the Transfer of Property Act will have to bet kept in view. Krishan Lal first sold part of his land allotted to him in the year 1957. To that extent his allotment has been held to be good. Thereafter he sold the remaining part, some in 1958 and some in 1959. At the time when he made subsequent sales in the years 1958 and 1959, if the order of cancellation is, to stand, he had no title left in him to make transfers in the years 1958 and 1959 and as such no title will pass to the vendees. This is the settled law that a vendor can transfer rights possessed by h and he can convey title no better than his. If title of Krishan Lal, the original allottee, is found to be wanting, then he had no title in 1958 and 1959 when he transferred the land in dispute to the petitioners who are his vendees. As such the petitioners will act no title to the property in dispute and no fault can be found with the transfer made by Krishan Lal in the year 1957 as at that 'time to the extent of the transfer made in that year he had title in the property. Therefore, the, only conclusion in law would be, as rightly, held by the authorities below, that the earlier transfers have to be held to be good to the extent to which Krishan Lal had the title and the subsequent transfers will be held to be bad and will have to be ignored and to that extent the area which has to be retrieved will have to be taken back from the subsequent vendees. No other view is possible.
7. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs.
8. Writ petition dismissed.