1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdadul Jadid, dated 18th of March 1975, by which Writ Petition No. 4-R/70-BWP was allowed and the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 7th of August, 1968, was restored.
2. The dispute relates to the transfer of 315 kanals and 9 marlas of agricultural land situate in village Sajawalwala, District Bahawalpur. This land was allotted and confirmed in the name of petitioner by the Chairman, Allotment Committee. The respondents 1-7 went in appeal against it to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) who remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for deciding it afresh. On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 7th of August 1968, allotted the land to the respondents against which order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who cancelled the allotment of the respondents and restored the order dated 20th of August 1966. The respondents, thereupon, filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner (Land), which was rejected by order dated 14th of November 1969.
3. The respondents next filed the aforementioned writ petition to assail the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commis--sioner dated 11th of June, 1969 and 14th of November 1969, respectively, and succeeded. The High Court examined the material afresh and held: firstly, that the claim form of the respondents "reached the village Sajawalwala earlier and was registered at Serial No. 85 of R. L. II" whereas that of the petitioner was received later and entered at Serial No. 87 of R. L. II which fact was correctly recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 7th of August 1968 and, therefore, in the light of the principle "first come first served" as contained in the instructions the respondents had a preferential right to the allotment of the land. In support of this proposition the High Court relied on the case of Muhammad Shafi and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others 1968 SCMR 121 secondly, that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, while accepting the appeal of the petitioner had observed that respondent No. 1 had got his claim form transferred to Ahmadpur East where he had furnished information regarding allotment and (later on he got this claim form transferred to village Sajawalwala at his own risk, which fact was erroneous as it was not borne out from the record ; and thirdly, that the Settlement Commissioner failed to apply his mind to the question of priority and hence his conclusion that respondent No. 1 had stepped in from the back door was erroneous.
4. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel contended that the High Court could not reassess the material on merits as that was not its function while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. But we see no merit in this con--tention as in assessing the legality of the orders the High Court has necessarily to examine the conclusions drawn from the material placed before the Settle--ment authorities. As would appear from the order of the High Court, the conclusions drawn by the Settlement authorities against the respondents were wholly un-justified as they were not borne out from the material on record. Therefore, the conjectural inferences drawn could not in law, sufficient deprive the respondents of their valuable preferential right to get the transfer of the disputed land.
5. It is not a case where there was some evidence to justify the inferences for in that case the High Court would not be justified to interfere. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable.
6. The petition thus has no substance and is dismissed.