KARAM ELAME CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about field No. 22 of Square No. 24, measuring 16 kanals, 13 marlas situated in Chak No. 147/E. B., Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. This land, according to the averments contained in the petition was under the temporary allotment of one Allah Banda. However, it was on 27-10-1951 allotted to Ata Muhammad (respondent No. 2).
Somewhere in the earlier wake of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Operations, Mr. I. U. Khan, Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner cancelled a large number of allotments by his general order dated 11-11-1956 which had till then been made in various areas including Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal and which did not fall within the principles indicated in his said order. As a result of the aforesaid, it is alleged by the petitioners, that the allotment made to respondent No. 2 was also seriously effected. The case of the petitioners is, that when the land in dispute was allotted to them on 19-2-1957, respondent No. 2, filed an appeal pointing out that it was a case of double allotment inasmuch as, according to him, the land stood allotted to him as well as to the petitioners and that the situation be set right. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by means of his order dated 2-9-1969 cancelled the allotment of the petitioners and allowed the land to remain with respondent No. 2. The petitioners then filed a writ petition bearing No. 177-R/70 which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by means of his order dated 12-11- 1970 and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication in terms of the aforesaid general order of Mr. I. U. Khan dated 11-11-1956, wherein he had laid down various principles in the light of which, he directed that the allotments to refugees should be made regulated and scrutinised.
2. After remand the case was taken up by the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner who by means of his order dated 17-5-1975, allowed the land to remain with Ata Muhammad respondent.
The actual order with reasons was passed in the relevant khata of the parties concerned and its brief reference was made in the --- case file--- where it was stated as follows;- "i.e. After hearing the arguments the implementation has been got made in the relevant khatas.
Khasra No. 24/22 will as before remain confirmed in the khata of Ata Muhammad. The file be comsigned to office after completion."
3. The petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No. 589-R/1975 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by means of his order dated 3- 7-1978. The learned Single Judge examined the matter in details and found that the allotment of respondent was of a prior date; that the claim of the respondents had come to the village earlier because it was entered in the relevant khara at No. 3 whereas the claim of the petitioners was down below at khata No. 17; and that the earlier allotment which had been made to the petitioners on 19-2-1957 had been made without hearing the respondents. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order of the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner as made in the file (copy Annex. "C") was not a speaking order and was quite summary and short in nature and therefore his writ petition deserved to be accepted on that short ground. He submitted that learned Single Judge had not given importance to this aspect of the matter- The contention has no merit. We have gone through the documents annexed by the petitioners with the present petition. The short order in the "case file" states that "after hearing the arguments the implementation has been made in the relevant khatas" of the parties and that "Khasra No. 24/22 will as before remain confirmed in the khata of Ata Muhammad." We have perused the relevant khata of the petitioners, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure "E". In that khata, there is a speaking order which states that the land had been allotted to Ata Muhammad respondent in year 1961; that the land' was never excluded from his khata; that even under orders of Mr. I. U. Khan the land had to be allotted to the respondent whose right was superior in all respects because the land could not be given to a new--comer (in the-chak) (as against) the respondent); and Khasra No. 24/22 was being consequently cancelled from the khata of the petitioners in accordance with the Writ Petition No. 177-R/1970 (which really means, after examination of the case in the light of the guideline given in the writ petition by the High Court). In the face of the aforesaid to say that the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner had not passed a speaking order is not correct. Be that as it may, the petitioners tried to advance their case on their own merits before the High Court, but could not succeed, inasmuch as the High Court also found that the claim form of the respondent had reached in the estate earlier and therefore he had preference over the petitioners. Learned counsel has not been able to point out anything factually wrong with this concurrent view of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and the High Court, and nor has he made out any case indicating violation of any fundamental principle of law as to warrant interference with the order of the High Court. The petition has no merit, and is dismissed.