' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of this appeal are that private respondents were allotted some land on 22-6-1960. Against the said allotment one Yamin filed mukhbari application, which was allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) vide order, dated 22-3-1968, and the allotment was cancelled. The respondents filed Writ Petition No, 222-R-1968, which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 17-10-1968. The respondents filed L.P.A. No,270 of 1968, which was allowed vide order, dated 13-2-1988 and the case was remanded to the Member Board of Revenue (Revenue) for entrustment to a Notified Officer. The Notified Officer decided the matter on 10-11-1990. The concluding para.Of the said order of the Notified Officer is reproduced as follows:- "The rural claims of all the petitioners have already been adjusted in villages "Chang Bela" "Singh" and "Pindi" Tehsil Chunian and this adjustment is not in dispute. Controversy is confined only to the petitioners claim for urban units. MRV of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 was lastly amended and aconsolidated MRV for 3821 units inclusive of 725 units were issued in their favor, 3130 rural units of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were adjusted and remaining 691 units of urban units are required to be adjusted in their names. The rural claim of 3821 units of respondent No,4 have already been adjusted in mauza "Pindi" at Khata No,89 and as per decision, dated 13-11-1967 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, (Land) Kasur, 781 units have been cancelled from the Khata of petitioner No,4. Therefore, the sale of surrendered land and allotment in Chak No,272/HR and 274/HR, Tehsil Fortabbas to the petitioners upto the tune of 691 and 781 PIUs is restored/confirmed in view of the above calculation/observation. The petitioners are directed to submit their choice of land which they want to retain immediately."
2. For the implementation of said order of the Notified Officer, respondents filed an application on 2-3-1991. Consequently, two Mutations bearing Nos. 582 and 583 were attested on 5-5-1992.
Through Mutation No,582 some lands were surrendered, while through Mutation No,583 some lands were allotted to the respondents. On 9-1-1991, the respondents filed a miscellaneous application before the Member Board of Revenue, seeking permission to purchase the surrendered land. This application was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order, dated 5-7-1995. This order was assailed by the appellant through Writ Petition No,3212 of 1995 which stood dismissed vide order, dated 19-2-2002 and is being assailed through the instant Intra-Court Appeal.
3. Precisely, grievance of the appellant in the Constitutionalpetition was that land detailed in para. No,7 of his writ petition i,e, Writ Petition No,3212-1995/BWP, Killas Nos. 16, 17 and 19 to 25 of Square No,12 are in his possession since long and he is entitled to the first right of sale of the said land under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the respondents are not claiming the land detailed in para. No,7 of the writ petition under order, dated 5-7-1995 passed by the Board of Revenue nor the said land had been proposed to them under the said order. This property stands transferred in their name through Mutation No,583 attested on 5-5-1992 on the basis of order, dated 10-11-1990, 29-10-1991 and 22-4-1992, which is not subject-matter of the writ petition.
4. When learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with this situation as to how he is aggrieved of the order, dated 5-7-1995, because under the said order the further implementation being taken by the , Deputy Commissioner through Annexure-"E" with the writ petitioner, the land in, dispute is not the subject-matter of implementation of order,dated 5-7-1995. It is contended by him that since the respondents are claiming right to the land through order, dated 10-11-1990, which does not contain any detail of land to be allotted or surrendered by the respondents, therefore, they are not entitled for the land detailed in Mutations Nos. 582 and 583 Annexure-"E" is irrelevant and has been brought on record by the Revenue hierarchy without any authority. The appellant being in possession of the above detailed land is entitled to first right of sale on the basis of possession.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the record.
6. It is evident from the order; dated 10-11-1990 passed by the Notified Officer that the earlier allotment surrendered and purchased by the appellants was not only restored but was also confirmed. However, they were given a choice to surrender the remaining excess land. In terms of the said order, they retained and surrendered land through an application, dated 2-3-1991 and detailed their choice separately for the land to be surrendered and retained. Accordingly two Mutations bearing No,582 for the surrender in favor of the Provincial Government and 583 in the name of the respondents from the Provincial Government were sanctioned. The land being claimed by the appellants as detailed in para. 7 of the writ petition was retained by the respondents by their choice and stood mutated in their favor vide Mutation No,583. The appellants have neither challenged the said mutation earlier nor have raised any objection before us with regard to the sanction said mutation. The said mutation stands sanctioned on the strength of orders, dated 10-11-1990, 29-10-1991 and 22-4-1992. Order, dated 10-11-1990 is available on record and is not questioned by the appellant, however the other two orders have neither been placed on record nor challenged through any proceedings, therefore, at this stage without having been thrown any challenge to the said mutation and the orders on the basis of which the said mutations stand sanctioned, the appellants cannot claim any right to purchase property mentioned in the said mutation. Undoubtedly, the property detailed and claimed by the appellants in para. 7 of their writ petition is the subject-matter of the said mutation.
7. For the purposes of implementation of the impugned order, dated 5-7-1995, a proposal was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 12-10-1995 Annexure E, in which land detailed is the same which is the subject-matter of Mutation No,582 i,e, the surrendered land by the respondents in terms of order, dated 10-11-1990. This proposal does not contain the land being claimed by the appellants to be in their possession and right to purchase under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. In this view of the matter, since the land being claimed by the appellants is not being dealt with under the impugned order the appellants had no locus standi to challenged said order.
8. For what been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.