M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-This appeal by leave of the Court raises a factual controversy whether Khasra No. 2781 measuring 8 kanals had not been allotted to Jama, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, at Khata No. 149 on 24-I-1953. The trouble arose when the Assistant Settlement Commissioner allotted part of this. Khasra number, that is, 2781/2, measuring 4 kanals, to Jiwana, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, on 28-2-1957. This was challenged by the respondents in appeal on the ground that the whole of the Khasra number having been allotted to their predecessor-in-interest, no part of the same could be subsequently allotted in favour of the appellants. The appeal was accepted and the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 28-2-1957 was set aside. The appellants failed in the first revision but succeeded in the second revision on 13-1-1966 before the Settlement Commissioner who held, inter alia, that the assertion that the whole of the khasra had been allotted to the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents on 24-1-1953 was wrong and that a part of Khasra number, namely, 2781/1, had in fact been allotted to them on 28-2-1957, on which date the other half, i. e. Khasra No. 2781/2, had been allotted to the appellants and that no objection had been taken to the latter allotment though the respondents were posted with the knowledge The respondents challenged the order before the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition which was accepted on 14- 11-1973 and in consequence the aforesaid order of the Settlement Commissioner was declared to be without lawful authority. The learned Chief Justice, who decided the petition, held : "It is manifest that Khasra No. 2781 had been allotted to the petitioners. Unless the said Khasra number, or a part of the same, had first been cancelled from the name of the petitioners, it could not be allotted in favour of any other person, and that being so, the allotment of a part of this Khasra number. Viz.. 2781/2. In the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (present appellants) is a nullity in the eyes of law. The allotment in favour of the petitioners (present respondents), therefore, continued to be operative."
Not satisfied, the appellants sought review of the order, contending that the respondents had in their writ petition deliberately filed incorrect copy of R. L. II which did not contain the order of the cancellation dated 8-10-1952 of Khasra No. 2781 by the Naib-Tehsildar and thus resulted in misleading the Court. The contention was rejected as being factually incorrect. It had also been contended that the respondents had not placed on record copy of R. L. II which contained the order of the A. R. C. Dated 28-2-1957 whereby Khasra No. 2781/ l had been allotted to Jama but this contention, too, was rejected with the observation that even if the respondents had not produced the same, the document, being a public document, could have been obtained and produced by the appellants if due diligence had been exercised by them. While thus rejecting the review petition on 19-2-1974, the learned Chief Justice reiterated that "Khasra No. 2781 had been allotted to the writ-petitioners and had not been cancelled and that the allotment made in favour of the respondents (present appellants) was a nullity". He further observed: "In view - of this, 'even if subsequent R. L. 11 by which Khasra No. 2781/1 measuring 4 kanals was allotted to Jama, had been produced, it would not have made any difference. The allotment could be made only if Khasra number had not been allotted earlier".
2. Leave was granted to consider the contention that the High Court had fallen in error in thinking that the entire Khasra No. 2781 was initially allotted to the respondents on 24-1-1973 in satisfaction of their verified claim which then amounted to 480 produce index units, that the said Khasra number had been specifically deleted from R. L. II issued in favour of the respondents as the produce index value of the remaining Khasra numbers included in R. L. II fully satisfied their claim, that when the respondents' claim was later on raised to 512 units, half of the said Khasra number, i. e., 2781/1, was then allotted to them on 28-2-1957 and that had the entire Khasra No. 2781 been included it the allotment of the respondents, then the produce index value of their holding would become 546, which would be much in excess of their total entitlement amounting to 512 units.
3. It was submitted before us that Khasra No. 2781 measuring 8 kanals had been proposed in the name of Jama but had been scored out before confirmation because its inclusion would give Jama 545 produce index units as against his entitlement of 480 as then calculated. For this, reference was made to the photostat copy of R. L. II Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, at page 20 of this paper-book. It was further submitted that later the entitlement was raised to 512 units and, therefore, one half of the Khasra number, i. e., 2781/1 measuring 4 kanals and equivalent to 33 units, was allotted in favour of Jama, while the other half, i. e., 2781/2, to Jiwna, on 28-2-1957, in the presence and with the consent of Wali Muhammad, the special attorney of Jama's successors-in- interest. For this reliance was placed on copies of R. L. II at pages 35 and 36 of this paper-book.
4. When the matter was first heard on 14-2-1982, we found that a confusion had been created by relying on the incorrect copy of the R. L. 11 furnished at page 20 of this paper-book. The counsel for the -parties were then given a day's time to prepare themselves on the basis of the documents filed in the High Court and the matter was further heard on 15-2-1982. The documents marked Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'I' filed before the High Court appear to be identical. These show Khasra No. 2781 measuring 8 kanals in column 10 which pertains to area allotted but the same is crossed out without any mention of the authority by or at whose instance it was done. The entries elsewhere in the same documents show that the area allotted against the entitlement of Jama had been 65 kanals 16 marlas equivalent in value to 546 units which could be only if Khasra No. 2781 had been included. The documents do not show nor was any order produced to explain when and how the scoring out bad taken place. That being so, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court was not unjustified in holding the Khasra No. 2781 bad been allotted to Jama and in the absence of satisfactory evidence of its cancellation from his name, the documents subsequent prepared could not be relied upon In the circumstance we find no merit in this appeal which we accordingly dismiss.