1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to 7 kanals and 4 marlas of land of Khasra Nos. 2047 and 2048 situated in Chak No. 212/R. B., Tehsil and District Lyallpur. According to the petitioners, this land lies within the municipal limits of Lyallpur and was transferred to them as urban land and a P.
2. T. O. Was issued in their favour on the 28th October 1960. This very land was, however, confirmed in the names of three persons, namely, Fateh Din, Mst. Bibi and Mst. Hakim Bibi as agricultural land.
3. These allottees subsequently transferred the land to Bashir Ahmad, the first respondent herein and one Manzoor. According to the petitioners, the allotment of the land in the names of the said three persons was illegally procured by the respondent No. 1 . The allotment in the names of the said three persons was, however, cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 1st January 1962. Being aggrieved by the order of cancella--tion of the allotment, Bashir Ahmad and Manzoor, the two vendees of the allottees filed an appeal without impleading therein the present petitioners.
4. The Additional Settlement and Rehabili--tation Commissioner accepted the appeal on the 18th May 1963, on the ground that the allotment had been cancelled without giving any opportunity to the appellants. The present petitioners then filed an appeal against the order restoring the lands to Bashir and Manzoor, but these two persons were not impleaded in that appeal. The same Additional Settlement and Rehabilita--tion Commissioner, by his order, dated the 6th September 1963, accepted the petitioners' appeal as he was of the opinion that the land in dispute was situated within the Municipal limits and was urban immovable property. In these circumstances, the respon--dent No. 1 made a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner, dated the 6th September 1563. A learned Single Judge of the High Court found that the same Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner passed two successive orders one on the 18th May 1963, and the other on the 6th September 1963, which according to him, were inconsistent. Accordingly, the Darned Judge accepted the writ petition and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the settlement authorities. A Letters Patent Appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge was preferred by the petitioners, but it was eventually dismissed. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal.
5. It appears that the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated the 18th May 1963, was in favour of the respondent No. 1 and one Manzoor Ahmad. This order was made in the absence of the present petitioners. It next appears that the same officer made an order on the 6th September 1963, in favour of Ibrahim (petitioner No. 1), but Bashir respondent No. 1 herein was not a party in the appeal wherein the order was made. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in holding that two inconsistent orders were made by the same Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in respect of the land in dispute. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to the order remanding the case to the settlement authorities for a fresh decision according to law.
6. The petition is dismissed.