1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. -This is a petition for review directed against the judgment of this Court dated 22nd November, 1976 whereby leave was refused in C. P. S. L. A. No, 576 of 1974.
2. ' Facts which form background are that Ghaus Bakhsh and Mehdi Khan sons of the petitioner (Mst.
3. Jannat) were allotted some land in Chak No, 152/GB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Lyallpur, sometime in April, 1964, in lieu of the verified claim of their father Munshi Khan, who had since died.
4. It appears, that Mst. Jannat (the petitioner herein) and widow of Munshi Khan had also got an independent claim equivalent to 307 units in lieu of which she did not obtain any allotment.
5. ' The respondent No, 1, Daulat Khan, lodged an information before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner against the sons of Munshi Khan alleging that the allotment obtained by them was in excess of their due entitlement. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) vide his order dated 28th April, 1965 found that this information correct in that land equivalent to 314 P. I. Units had been allotted in favour of the sons of Munshi Khan in excess of their due entitlement. Treating the said Daulat Khan as an informant in this regard a direction was issued that a proposal be made for allotment of the excess land in his favour. This order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not challenged by the sons of Munshi Khan. However, their mother (the petitioner herein) moved a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the land in possession of her sons which was found to be in excess of their entitlement be allotted to her against her pending claim of 307 P. I. Units. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 13th May, 1965 accepted this plea and directed the allotment of the land in her favour notwithstanding the earlier order dated 28th April.
6. 1965. Daulat Khan filed an appeal against this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was accepted on 5th November, 1965 h the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the case was remanded. Ultimately, on 2nd November, 1966, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. As Chairman Allotment Committee, directed that the area in dispute be allotted in favour of Daulat Khan being the first informant. Mst. Jannat challenged this order by filing an appeal against it but this was dismissed on 26th January, 1967 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. She then moved a revision petition which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 23rd June 1967 who directed that the land be allotted to Mst. Jannat Bibi. This last-mentioned order was challenged by Daulat Khan by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W. P. No, 765-R of 1967) which was accepted by a learnd Single Judge on 6th December, 1973 with the result that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 26th January, 1967 was restored.
7. ' Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved this Court by a C. P. S. L. A. No, 576 of 1974 which was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on the 22nd November, 1976, hence this petition for review.
8. ' Ch. Abdur Rahman, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Daulat Khan could not be treated as an informant and that the present petitioner being the mother of the allottees was entitled to the area found to have been allotted in favour of her sons in excess of their entitlement.
9. ' This Court rightly (we say so with respect) found that Daulat Khan could be treated as an informant because it was on his information that it was discovered that Ghaus Bakhsh and Mehdi Khan sons of Munshi Khan had obtained allotment of 314 units in excess of their entitlement. So far as the claim of petitioner was concerned she had an independent claim of her own and could not, therefore, take advantage of this allotment made in favour of her sons. It was only if she had also laid information against the excess allotment made in favour of her own sons that she could have competed for the allotment of the area in dispute. In fact, she did not lay any information in this regard but only submitted a miscellaneous application for the allotment of area on the ground that it had become available. However, Daulat Khan had preference to the allotment as it was on his information that it had become available in the first place. There is nor error patent on the face of the record, hence this petition fails. .
10. ' Ch. Abdur Rahtnan, Advocate for the petitioner lastly submitted that the claim of the petitioner was still pending and that she may be allotted some laud in lieu of it. This request should be made before the authorities concerned and if the law permits and some land is still available it may be allotted to her against her pending units.
11. ' This petition, with these objections, is hereby dismissed.