M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The dispute relates to an area of land measur--ing 254 kanals 12 marlas situate in village Kurala, Tahsil Chiniot, District Jhang. This land had been allotted to Jiwana, respondent 4, on 16-5-1966 against 1223 units of his claim. He later sold the land in favour of Haji Muhammad Shafi, Mian Fazal Karim (petitioners 1 and 2 both since dead). Mian Muhammad Bashir (petitioner 3) and Muhammad Amin(predecessor---in-interest of petitioners Nos.4 to 9) by a registered sale-deed dated 19-7-1966 for Rs.30,000. However, at the instance of Mehar Muhammad, respon--dent 5, who laid information on 14-7-1970 that the allotment of the said land had been made fraudulently as Jiwana bad already got full satisfaction of his claim in District Sheikhupura, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the allotment on 24-2-1971. A settlement revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 13- 4-1976. Their .Writ Petition No. 672/R of 1976 was also dismissed in limine on 31-5-1976. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 24-2-1971 shows that respondent Jiwana had appeared first before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and again before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and had taken the consistent stand that he had not secured allotment of any land in Jhang District nor had he sold any land to any one. The Additional Settlement Commissioner also found that the land in question had been mortgaged with non- Muslims and as such its allotment could not be made without first redeeming it. In respect of another allotment in village Vinoka, District Jhang, also made in favour of Jiwana, the Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the same was evacuee trust property not open to allotment.
Jiwana who again appeared through counsel before the Settlement Commissioner, took the same stand. It was discovered that the age of Jiwana, who had appeared before the Sub-Registrar in connection with the registration of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners, had been recorded there as 36 years whereas the real Jiwana who appeared before the Settlement Authorities was an old man of 80. There is no rebuttal of the stand taken by Jiwana before the Settlement Authorities.
The petitioners themselves did not produce Jiwana from whom they had acquired the land nor did they make any attempt to show that the claim of Jiwana had not been already satisfied in the district of Sheikhupura. The contention raised before the High Court that the Settlement Authorities had passed the orders without proper inquiry had been repelled by the learned Judge. It was for the petitioners to have brought true facts before the Settlement Authorities. It is not that they had no notice of the proceeding. They did not appear before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but as noticed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, they had filed their wakalat--namas and also made applications before that Court. They had appeared before the Settlement Commissioner through counsel.
3. The additional grounds taken in an application separately moved during the pendency of this petition relate to matters subsequent to the passing of the impugned order of the High Court and as such have not relevancy.
4. For the reasons discussed, we find no substance in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same.