MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J. Ausman predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, a displaced person from Ferozepur, having died, the petitioners filed a claim in respect of agricultural land, which was verified for 11144 produce index units. Land equivalent to that was allotted to the petitioners on 4-12- 1951. Ahmed Khan laid information before the Settlement Depart--ment on 3-7-1963 alleging that the petitioners had secured allotment of land equal to 400 P. I. Units in excess of their entitlement.
On a report being called the Naib. Tehsildar submitted that, in fact, the allotment was in excess by 1251 produce index units. On 17-2-1964 therefore the D. S. C., Sahiwal ordered cancellation of the allotment of the land in excess of the allotment of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal which was partly accepted on 13-9-1964 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who found that in fact the allotment was only in excess of the entitlement of the petitioners by 791 units and he gave an order that the petitioners may be given the choice to select the land which they. Would like to retain. A revision petition made to the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed on 27-4- 1965.
2. On 6-7-1965 the excess land was allowed to the respondents in their capacity as informers and a settlement revision petition filed against the allotment was dismissed by the High Court as being incompetent on 26-5-1971.
3. An application was then, presented by the petitioners to the D. S. C. Claiming the benefit of a memorandum dated, 18-5-1962 to purchase the land in excess of their entitlement. This application was granted and the petitioners deposited the amount The other side filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 30-1-1975. A review petition made before the High Court was also dismissed on 4-3-1975. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. The writ petition in the High Court was filed for obtaining the declaration that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 27-4-1965 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners be declared to be without lawful authority and that its implementation be suspended.
5. The learned Judge of the High Court dealing with submission of the petitioners came to the conclusion that the points raised in the writ petition had already been disposed of when settlement Revision Petition No. 43/65 was dismissed and they could not be re-opened in the writ petition.
The learned Judge of the High Court has reproduced (page 33 of the paper-book) that part of the order passed in the settlement revision petition, which he was referring and we fully agree with him in that respect. The learned Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition.
6. The review petition filed by the petitioners had no substance whatsoever because no new point had been raised in it which was not within the knowledge of the petitioners at the time when the writ petition had been filed.
7. This petition has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is dismissed.