1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEAI, J.-This order will govern Civil Petitions Nos. 260 of 1977 and 470 of 1978 which is barred by 448 days ; and subject to all just exceptions as to the condonation of delay, we have heard this and the other petition on merits. The petitioner in both the petitions is the same and they arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Dated 1st of March, 1977. Civil Petition No, 260 of 1977 arises out of Writ Petition No, 25-R of 1977 while the other petition is against the acceptance of 'Writ Petition No, 36-R of 1977.
2. ' The petitioner is a claimant displaced person from an agreed area. He settled in village Khanpur, Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan, and filed seven claim forms bearing Nos. 1690, 1691, 1693, 1694, 1696, 1697 and 1698 which were duly verified for 1352 P. I. Units ; and, thereafter, his entitlement was entered in Khata No, 7/25 of R. L. H of village Gawans ; and on 17th of January, 1953, the land was confirmed in his favour. Thereafter, he became entitled to 615 P. I. Units which were transferred to village Muradpur, Tehsil Ubera, District Sukkur, for satisfaction. He was allotted land in Khata No 451 of that village on 30th of June, 1960. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted a Mukhbari application and stated therein that his claim form No, 1693 was incorrectly verified and, therefore, he was not entitled to 308 P. I. Units which should be cancelled from his entitlement. They Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 13th of December, 1960, cancelled his land from Khata No, 451. The respondents appealed against this order and contended that instead of the cancellation of his land from Khata No, 451, the land allotted against his claim form No, 1693 in village Gowans should be cancelled which prayer was accepted and land equivalent to 308 P. I. Units was cancelled from his Khata No, 7/25. The revision against this order was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 13th of May, 1966.
3. ' The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the cancellation of his land from village Gowans in Writ Petition No, 1929-R of 1966 which was also dismissed by judgment dated 13th of December, 1973.
4. The petitioner then filed Civil Petition No, 209 of 1974 and leave was refused by order dated 21st of October, 1974.
5. ' The petitioner, thereafter on the basis of some information which he received after the dismissal of the Civil Petition on 2nd of February, 1969, filed another writ petition No, 1297-R of 1975 to contend that the further cancellation of his land from village Gowans was against the spirit of the order of the High Court upholding the cancellation of the excess land. But as the petition was not against any specific order, the High Court held that the petitioner was attempting to re-open a past and closed transaction which could not be permitted. However, the counsel contended, that he did not hold any excess land ; and that the land which had been cancelled from his Khata in village 'Gowans, was still available, it could still be allotted to him. In the absence of any material to ascertain the correctness of the statement, the High Court disposed of the petition by order dated 24th of November, 1977, with the following remarks :- "The petitioner may, if so advised, apply to the local settlement authorities in this behalf who can pass orders in accordance with law if any application is made before them."
6. ' The petitioner, on 28th of November, 1975, applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the restoration of the cancelled land. Respondents 2 and 3 also filed an application before the said officer for the allotment of the cancelled land as informants. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 28th of December, 1976, refused to restore the land to the petitioner, and at the same time rejected the prayer of the respondents on the ground that they had applied for cash compensation and were not, therefore, entitled to the allotment of this land. The parties filed the aforementioned writ petitions to assail this order. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed while that of the respondents' was allowed and the land was ordered to be allotted to them.
7. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the High Court that the petitioner was not entitled to the restoration of the cancelled land as he failed to substantiate his claim in the earlier writ petition before the High Court and the Suprem Court, We see substance in this conclusion for it appears to us that Writ Petition No, 1297-R of 1975 was an attempt to obtain a review of the order of the Supreme Court on the basis of some material discovered later and propriety demanded that he should have brought this material to the notice of the Supreme Court by way of a review petition, if at all it had any substance. Again, the remarks of the High Court in Writ Petition No, 1297-R of 1975 could not be pressed into service to claim restoration of the land allotted against a bogus claim, the propriety of which was upheld by the High Court and this Court as well and, therefore, to all intents and purposes, it was an attempt to re-open the controversy which had assumed finality. Lastly, the petitioner having no legal right to claim restoration of the land, he is debarred from challenging the legality of the order of the High Court qua the allotment of this land to respondents Bashiruddin and Muhammad Younas.
8. ' There is, therefore, no substance in these petitions which are dismissed.