1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 6-11-2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ petition No,381/R of 1986 filed by the petitioners was disposed of remitting the case to the Notified Officer so as to determine the inter se shares of the brothers and their extent in 47% share of the Regal Cinema, Faisalabad.
2. ' This case has got a chequered history as the litigation between the parties is going on for the last more than three decades among the real brothers over the allotment of above cinema. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that originally above cinema was allotted in the name of 11 persons. However, upon the commencement of the Settlement operation, the Settlement Commissioner (Industries), at the application of Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh, the other allottee, sought approval from the Chief Settlement Commissioner for its transfer in his favor, which was accorded. In the meantime, the respondent's predecessor-in-interest and other brothers entered the arena. The Central Government through an order dated 13-12-1971 ordered the transfer of the cinema on 50:50 basis to the petitioner and his brothers on the one side and Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh on the other. Writ Petition bearing No,999-R of 1973 was filed by the legal heirs of aforestated Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh wherein a compromise was effected between the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest Umar Draz Khan and legal heirs of Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh agreeing the transfer in the ratio of 47% and 53% respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid writ Petition, only heirs of Umar Draz Khan, predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners, were impleaded whereupon the heirs of other brother Mubarik Ali Khan made an application bearing C.M. No,3171 of 1983 for their impleadment, which was declined by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through order, dated 7-6-1986. However, during the course of implementation of its distribution, the learned Settlement Commissioner (Industries) passed order on 25-9-1986 implementing the compromise order transferring the property to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners to the extent of 47% and 53% to the legal heirs of Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh. The plea of the heirs of Mubarik Ali Khan respondent was rejected simply on the ground that the remand order passed in Writ petition No,999-R of 1973 was only confined to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Umar Draz Khan as well as of Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh.
3. ' Aggrieved by the above order of the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) dated 25-9-1986, the respondents filed Writ Petition No,381-R of 1986 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been accepted and the matter stands remitted to the Notified Officer through the judgment, dated 6-11-2001 of the learned Single Judge, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with their assistance. We have noticed that the learned Settlement Commissioner while implementing the order, dated 7-6-1986 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,999-R of 1973 was mainly swayed by the compromise which was effected between the heirs of Umar Draz Khan on one hand and Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh and others on the other. He was of the view that the case had been remanded by the High Court to pass fresh order of transfer of the cinema in accordance with the terms of the compromise between them. Since the compromise was effected only between the legal heirs of Umar Draz Khan and Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh, as such he did not entertain the claim of the respondents. He totally ignored the reference by the learned Single Judge in its judgment that he did not decide the issue of allotment among the brothers. Not a single word was stated by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in remand order qua the inter se rights of the brothers. That issue was totally left open. The respondents' Miscellaneous Application bearing No,3171 of 1983 was rejected and since they admitted the representative character of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Umar Draz Khan, as such they could not object to the compromise effected by him in that capacity. He left the matter open. It would be appropriate to reproduce his determination in this regard which is in the following terms:-- "Whether in actual effect Umar Draz was pursuing the matter in his individual capacity or as a representative of himself and his brothers is a matter between Umar Draz and the applicants. In other words, whether the applicants can set up a claim against Umar Draz is a matter between these two and does not fall for determination in the present proceedings., The Miscellaneous Petition No,3171 of 1983 is, therefore, rejected."
5. ' The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has now given A cogent reasons to uphold the claim of the respondents. He has pointed out that the basic order in this case was of the Central Government, dated 13-12-1971 whereby the entitlement of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as well as his brothers was admitted on an application jointly filed by them. This order was never challenged by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest before any forum. The same was, however, taken exception to by the legal heirs of Hafiz Azeem Bakhsh who filed Writ Petition No,999- R of 1973 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on a compromise effected, as already stated, among the heirs of Umar Draz Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and Hafiz Azeem Baklish wherein they agreed to the transfer of the cinema in the ratio of 47% and 53% respectively.
6. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed and leave refused.