FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this leave petition are that deceased Sher Muhammad had a verified claim of 494 P.
1. Units, which was reverified and reduced to 413 P. I. Units.
His wife Mst. Bhago, since deceased, had a verified claim equivalent to 802 P.
1. Units which, on re- verification, was reduced to 498 P. I. Units. The unofficial respondents herein are the heirs of Sher Muhammad and Mst. Bhago. Both the deceased got land allotted in lieu of their verified claims. In 1965, the petitioners filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act complaining that Sher Muhammad had got excess allotment of land to the extent of 81 P.
1. Units and Mst. Bhago had obtained allotment of land which was in excess by 132 P. I. Units.
The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelled the excess area vide his order dated 12-2- 1968 and on 7-3-1968 the petitioners were allotted the cancelled excess area. Sher Muhammad and Mst. Bhago filed an appeal against the order dated 7-3-1968, which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 3-11-1968. The petitioners then preferred a revision and the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 26-2-1970 set aside the order dated 23-I1-1968 and remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for hearing the appeal afresh.
On remand, the appeal was again decided in favour of Sher Muhammad and Mst. Bhago by order dated 10-2-1972, which was again challenged in revision by the petitioners; and the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 4-5-72, allowed the revision, but again remanded the case for fresh hearing of the appeal.
On the second remand, the Additional Settlement Commissioner found in favour of the petitioners by his order dated 30-9-75 and maintained the allotment of the excess area in favour of the petitioners. A revision against this order tailed as incompetent and was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 18-10-1975.
During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings Sher Muhammad died on 17-6-1969 and Mst.
Bhago died on i-2-72. The heirs of the two decea3ed invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 challenging the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 30-9-75, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High court vide judgment dated 11-5-1980 which was affirmed in an Intra-Court Appeal on 30-6-1980, The High Court held that the petitioners had filed to implead the legal heirs of the deceased allottees Sher Muhammad and Mst. Bhago in the litigation following the cancellation of the excess area allotted to them by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 12-2-68, which order was also made without notice to the original allottees. It was further noticed in the petitioners' Revision which was disposed of by the Settlement Commis--sioner by his order dated 26-2-70 that the heirs of Sher Muhammad were not impleaded as parties and in further Revision against the order dated 10-2-72 the heirs of both the original allottees were not parties and the order in Revision dated 4-5-72 was, therefore, without lawful authority.
Sh. Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, invited our attention to the order dated 30-9-75 made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner with a view to show that the legal heirs of the two deceased original allottees were represented by a counsel arid, therefore, irrespective of what may have happened prior thereto, at least this order was not open to challenge on the ground that it was made without notice to the legal heirs of the original allottees. This order, it may be mentioned, was an order made on remand by the Additional Settlement Commissioner following the Revision filed by the petitioners which was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner vide Order dated 4-5-72. This order dated 4-5-72 had set aside the earlier order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 10-2-72 which was an order in favour of the original allottees. What the learned counsel, therefore, had to show was that the legal heirs were impleaded as a party in the Revi0on filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10- 2-72 and that this Revision was heard and disposed of after notice to the legal heirs of the two decease, original. Allottees. The order dated 4-5-72 does not show either that the legal heirs of the deceased original allottees were made party to the Revision, or that they were represented and heard before this Revision came to bedecided. It must, therefore, follow that the order dated 4-5- 1972 mad in the Revision filed by the petitioners was without lawful authority as held by the High Court and with that will fall the superstructure of the order dated 30-9-75 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and in Revision by the Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 18-10-1975.
The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.