1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-.The petitioner, a displaced person from Punjab, on migration to Pakistan settled at Mauza Malkan Hanse, Tehsil Pakpattan. District Sahiwal. His case is that he constructed his own house in Khasra No. 231/5-Min and 6/1. Some other houses have also been built in this area.
2. He continued to remain in uninterrupted pos--session of the house in dispute and being in possession of it right upto 1st January 1961, he became its transferee, under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VII by operation of law. However, respondents 3-4 in collusion with the then Halqa Patwari got the same Khasra No. Allotted in their favour. Out of this Khasra No. Sher Ali respondent got this land confirmed in lieu of agricultural units on Khata R. L. II No. 60 vide order of Chairman, Allotment Committee dated 29th March, 1965 and Niaz Mohammad respondent obtained allotment on Khata R. L. II No. 9 on 9th May 1968. His further allegation is that on Khata R. L.
3. II No. 60 pertaining to Sher Ali the thumb impressions of all the sitting allottees of the possession who had constructed houses on Khasra No. 231/5-Min consisting of an area of 5 kanals 4 marlas were allegedly obtained, but these, according to the petitioner, were not their genuine thumb impressions but fabricated ones. That against the order of allot--ment of Khasra No. 231/5-Min in favour of respondent Sher Ali dated 29th March 1965, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) vide his order dated 11th January 1971. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) but that too failed and was dismissed vide order dated 19th March 1971. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 386-R/71) which also was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order and judgment dated 24th June, 1975. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The main ground on which the appeal as well as the writ petition failed was that the petitioner was present when the allotment was made in favour of the contesting respondent and his thumb impression was also taken on the Register R. L. II. Having consented to the allotment in favour of the contesting respondents he has no locus standi to agitate against it.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the thumb impression alleged to be that of the petitioner was not, in fact, his thumb impression and, therefore, the learned Settlement Courts and the High Court erred in treating it as that of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had argued that his so-called thumb impression was not his genuine thumb impression but a forged one and, therefore, the Settlement authorities should have taken the steps to have this matter investigated and clarified. However, it was conceded before us that noapplication was submitted by the petitioner with the prayer that his thumb-impression be taken in Court and sent for comparison with the disputed thumb impression to a Finger Print Expert. In these circum--stances, this is hardly a fit case for interference. The competent authority could raise the normal presumption that official acts are regularly performed and, therefore, accept the thumb impression on R. L. II Register to be genuine or if so minded could have sent the admitted thumb- impression of the petitioner for comparison. As one of the two courses, which were clearly open to the competent authority, was followed, it cannot be said that the relevant authorities had acted with--out lawful authority in following the course they actually did in preference to the other.
6. This petition is without force and is dismissed hereby.