' This petition seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 24th November, 1972 passed by Settlement Commissioner, Multan, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land in dispute was allotted in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner in village Qutab Pur. Tehsil and District Multan. According to the petitioners they submitted an application on 4th July, 1970 under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land. Settlement) Act seeking cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the respondents. This application was rejected by order dated 15th June, 1972 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Multan, exercising power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Writ Petition No, 546/R/72 was filed against the aforementioned order which was disposed of by order dated 24th August, 1972 by Mr. Justice Mohammad Akram (as he then was) with a direction that the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal under section 18 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. Consequently, an appeal was filed which was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner. Multan on 24th November, 1972.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was a sitting allotted of the village and the respondents got transferred, their claim from non-congested area to congested area without there being a proper order and for that reason the allotments made in their favour were void. Learned counsel pointed out observations of this Court made in reference to other matters to the effect, that the respondents did not properly get transferred their claim to village Qutab Pur.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner being an informer had no vested right to maintain the present petition. It was contended that the application under sections 10 and 11 of the DiSplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was made by the petitioner on 4th July, 1972. His appeal was rejected on 15th June, 1972 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, whereas section 14A of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958 was introduced for the first time on 30th July, 1973 by virtue of Act LV of 1973. He contended that this right could not operate retrospectively. He submitted that the present writ petition was filed on 11th January, 1973 about seven months earlier than the aforementioned amendment made in the law. He relied on Muhammad Siddiq and 2 others v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Lahore and 2 others (I) and Abida Kharoon v. Mian Ghulam Sabir, Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan (2).
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands because he had moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, on 9th November, 1967 which was rejected on 21st May, 1969 by Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal which was also rejected on 19th February, 1970. It was pointed out that the petitioner had completely suppressed this aspect of the case in this Court as such this petition merits dismissal on this ground alone.
6. He argued that the petitioner moved two applications on the same subject apart from one application filed by one Ghulam Nabi against the respondents whereby the allotments made in their favour were scrutinized more than once, therefore, the application was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order was rightly confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner., It was pointed out that the land in dispute had been sold to various persons after the allotment, but despite having full knowledge of the vendees the petitioner did not deliberately implead them as parties in this petition, although they were necessary and proper parties in this case.
7. It was lastly argued that Mst. Azeeman respondent No, 5 died in 1965, long before the filing of this petition. It was submitted that the allotment of the land in dispute was jointly held by Mst. Azeeman along-with other respondents and therefore, the present petition was incompetent being filed against a dead person.
8, 1 have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with reference to documents on the file and find that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands He deliberately suppressed earlier application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Person. (Land Settlement) Act, moved by him and the dismissal of his appeal an further revision before the Settlement Authorities. This petition, in fact, merits dismissal on this ground alone.
9. The petitioner claims himself to be sitting allottee of the revenue' estate. He could have assailed the order of allotment made in favour of the contesting respondents by way of appeal or revision instead of filing another Mukhbari application before the Settlement Authorities. The application, therefore, was misconceived. In Muhammad Ali v. Fazal Hussain and others (3) the Supreme Court of Pakistan held to the effect that recourse to provisions of section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, is not only uncalled for and misconceived when order could be challenged before higher Settlement Authorities.
10. The alienation of the land in dispute by the respondents in favour of several vendees was not denied by the petitioner but as it appears he did c not deliberately implead them as respondents in this petition. The vendee were very much necessary parties in this case, they cannot be impleade as respondents, at this stage. It is also established from a copy of death {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 13 L. D 1965 SC 123 (2) PLD 1964 SC 793 (3) 1975 SC M R 61 {{FOOT NOTE}} entry placed on the record that Mst. Azeeman (respondent No, 5) died in the year 1965 prior to filing of this petition. The petition therefore, was incompetent as against her. She was admittedly joint allotee of the disputed land and no effective order could, therefore, be passed in regard to the property in dispute.
11. For all the reasons recorded above, I am satisfied that this petition merits dismissal and I accordingly dismiss it with no order as to costs.