1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts briefly stated are that Shahu, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4, was allotted agricultural land on 11-1-1955 in lieu of a part of his verified claim in Chak No. 108-G. B. Tehsil Jaranwala. His balance claim was transferred to Chak No. 591-G. B., Tehsil Jaranwala where be secured allotment in full satisfaction of his claim on 16-2-1956.
2. Petitioners predecessors-in-interest. Nemat Khan and Booba were the sitting allottees of Chak No. 591-G. B., Tehsil Jaranwala from 1953. On 14-5-1957 a part of their holding was withdrawn on the ground that it had been reserved for a school. On their representation, Additional Settlement Commissioner directed that area equivalent to 135-P. I. Units be cancelled out of the land already allotted to Shahu and accordingly land comprising Killas Nos. 15, 17/2 and 25 of Square No. 35 was withdrawn from Shahu's allotment.
3. This lead to series of litigation between the parties and finally in the fourth round of litigation, Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 227-R of 1971 filed by respondents 1 to 4 upheld their allotment dated 16-2-1956 on the grounds that may be usefully reproduced by reproducing the following portion of the judgment of the High Court.
4. "The disputed land was confirmed on 16-2-1956 in favour of the petitioners and at that time no units of the respondents were pending satisfaction in the Chak. The subsequent increase of 135 P. I.
5. Units to the credit of respondents 1 and 2 by the Central Record Room on 14-4-1957 could not operate retrospectively so as to deprive the petitioners of permanent allotment of the land made on 16-2-1956, against their verified claim. They bad acquired right in the property. The petitioners neither obtained the disputed land by fraud or misrepresentation nor was it held to be in excess of their entitlement, obviously, therefore, no valid order could be passed by respondent No. 3 to direct allotment of land to the respondents from the Khata of the petitioners. The initial order of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners dated 16-2-1956 had attained finality. The initial order of the disputed land made in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 being contrary to law and thus void, ought to have been set aside by the Settlement authorities and no law of limitation could be pleaded against the petitioner, particularly when this Court had specifically directed the authority to consider 16-2-1956 to be the crucial date for the determination of the entitlement of the petitioners and the Settlement Authorities flagrantly violated, the direction and placed incorrect and different interpretations there to. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the allotment was made in 1957 in favour of respondents 2 and 3, it will be inequitable and will also disturb them at this stage if the same is cancelled, is also devoid of force, because it was the petitioners who had been deprived of the land validly allotted to them as far back as 16-2- 1956 by the competent authority."
6. Petitioners now seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court and Mr. Sardar Sami Hayat, learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner has repeated almost the same arguments that were addressed on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court.
7. Since the High Court has already rejected all these points for very valid reasons there is no justification for this Court to interfere. The important aspect of the case has already been noticed by the High Court that the disputed land was already confirmed in respondents' favour on 16-2- 1956 at a time when no P. 1: Units of the petitioners were pending satisfaction in the Chak and the subsequent increase of 13 P. I. Units subsequently credited by the Central Record Office to petitioners' credit on 14-4-1957 could not be pressed into service retrospectively so as to deprive the res--pondents of their permanent allotment of land made against their verified claim.
8. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is dismissed in limine.