1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of land in Chak No. 53/4-R in Fort Abbas, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur.
2. The land was allotted to the petitioner. It was, however, included in the limit of Haroonabad Municipal Committee and could not therefore, be confirmed under the Scheme as he held claim for rural and not urban land. He alongwith some other persons made representation to the Rehabilitation Commissioner for getting their verified claim for rural area adjusted against their allotment of urban land in this aforesaid Chak. This application was rejected and the area under his temporary allotment was allotted and confirmed in favour of Shaukat A.I, respondent No. 1 on 7- 4-60. He challenged this order in appeal and revision but the same was dismissed. The petitioner challenged this Order in Writ Petition No. 1164/R of 1965 which was also dismissed on 9-11-66.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner started second round of litigation by making an application as an informer against respondent No. 1. He complained to the settlement authorities that respondent No. 1's claim is only to the extent of 35 kanals and he was holding land in excess. This application was also dismissed on the ground that he had already lost up to the stage of Letter Patent Appeal in previous litigation. It was further observed that later on mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned in favour of petitioner and his brothers Abdul Rahman as their two brothers Waris and Kalu had died before partition. On this basis the entire area was confirmed in the name of Shaukat and Abdul Rahman. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur and the case was remanded on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner could not have reviewed his case. The matter was again considered and the claim of the respondent was found to be correct in view of the mutation of inheritance. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 378/R/1 which was dismissed on 16-4-75. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. Mr. Naazar Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under para. 24 of the Settlement Scheme the petitioner was entitled to get his temporary claim adjusted against urban area. This contention is no longer open to him. The petitioner had exhausted all his remedies on this basis and has failed to succeed in his efforts.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been rightly given the property to dispute in lieu of their claim inherited from their two brothers Waris and Kaka who died before partition. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No. 1 was holding land in excess of his claim is without any foundation and cannot be accepted. The petition has no force and it is dismissed.