1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J-Leave to appeal in this case was granted on 12th March, 1974 to examine whether the remand of a land settlement case by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, was justified in law - as according to the appellant, there was enough material before the High Court to come to a decision that he being a sitting allottee, would have preference for the allotment of the land under paragraph 8 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme against the contesting respondents who were only allowance holders.
2. 125 acres of land was allotted to respondent No. 1 in 1951. It was cancelled by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation Commissioner in 1956. The order of Mr. I. U. Khan having been made subject of various stages in lengthy litigation was ultimately upheld by this Court. Out of the afore-- mentioned land 32 acres were allotted to the appellant in 1957. The respondent challenged this allotment through a writ petition, which was accepted. After the decision of the writ petition, this very land was again allotted to respon--dent No. 1 on 29-9-1963. The appellant and some other persons filed separate appeals against this order of allotment, which were allowed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner on 1-9-1964. The respondent's revision petition was dismissed on 14-5-1964. Thereafter a writ petition No. 995-R of 1965 was filed by the respondents side which was accepted on 20-6-1973 with an order of remand to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appellant chal--lenged this order of remand through a petition for leave to appeal which as already noted was allowed in order to examine the question whether there was enough material of unquestionable credibility to come to a conclusion that the appellant was at the relevant time a sitting allottee.
3. Learned counsel has referred to an entry in Fard Taqseem Mohajareen where in column No. 8, the name of the appellant with several others is mentioned alongwith Shah Muhammad Khan, who is stated to be the real claimant, Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied on a certified copy of an order passed by the same Additional Settlement Commis--sioner (Land) who had passed the appellate order dated 1-9-1964 in this case on 9-11-1964 (this. Order was also under challenge in the High Court). The copy stows that the entry relied upon by the learned counsel was declared as "a got-up one and thus could not be relied upon". Learned counsel for the respondent relying on the aforequoted finding states that the case from the respondent's side on facts, with regard to the question whether the appellant was a sitting allottee, to say the least, is also as arguable as that of the appellant. He however stated that further material would also be placed before the Authority competent to decide the questions of fact. Therefore, the High Court rightly remanded the case for fresh decision.
4. It is not necessary for this Court to decide the question of fact raise from the appellant's side.
5. Keeping in view the contents of the order impugned before the High Court, the question as to whether the appellant was or was not a sitting allottee could be resolved only through a proper enquire and affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is not a case in which the assertion regarding the appellant being a sitting allottee is either undisputed or substantiated by admitted facts. The controversy can best be resolved in accordance with the procedure adopted by the High Court. No justification has been made out for interference by this Court. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.