1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Three petitions have been filed seeking leave to appeal against the same judgment of the Lahore Court dated 3-6-1980 whereby a settlement revision filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed.
2. Chiragh Din, respondent No. 3 and Muhammad Sharif, the predecessor-- in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, migrated from village Mandi Choori Maran, Tehsil Zera, District Ferozepur.
3. They laid claim to, among others, 582 Kanals 12 Marlas of land in respect of which they held pre- emption decree of the civil Court dated 25-11-1945 and which had been partly given effect to in the mutation. In the first round confined to the verification of such a claim the Rehabilitation Commissioner-Punjab on 8-1-1953 passed the followingorder :- "The case of the petitioner is that on 12-11-1947 he had secured a decree in a pre-emption suit in respect of the land in question on 11-12-1945. Mutation No.999 was drawn up but it was yet pending when owing to disturbances the parties had to migrate. The copies of the statements of persons concerned on the file of the A. F . C. (L) show that the contention of the petitioner is correct. I have also seen the Jamabandi. There is a reference of mutation No. 999 on the first page of the Jamabandi. It has been noted that this mutation alongwith others was pending in August, 1947. 1 therefore accept this revision petition and direct that a provisional Fard Haqiat should be issued in respect of this land to the petitioner .And steps should be taken to secure a copy of mutation No. 999 from the authorities of Indian Dominion at the border after which a Fard Haqiat should be made final. A copy of this order should also be sent to the O. S. D. (L) for necessary action."
4. The of necessary Allotment on the basis of provisional verification was made but at the same time the question of re-verification or final verification was taken up by the concerned authorities and it ended with an order of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 9th of June, 1971.
5. The decree of the civil Court was considered deficient and not honoured. Against this order the settlement revision was filed by the respondents. It has succeeded mainly on the strength of the order reproduced above and passed earlier by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 8-1-1953.
6. Aggrieved by this order the informer has filed petition for leave to appeal 'which is numbered as C.
7. P. 840/'80. The other two petitions 1132/80 and .1224/80 have been filed by purchasers from subsequent allottee. All the three sets of petitioners are interested in rejection of the claim of the respondents on the basis of the decree of the civil Court and want to have the last order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner passed on 9-6-1971 sustained.
8. The objection of the petitioners to the claim of the respondents based on the decree of the civil Court is that the vendors in that pre-emption decree were possessed of no interest which they could transfer in favour of the vendees and consequently there was nothing which the respondents could pre-empt and lay claim to on the basis of such a pre-emption decree. Secondly it has been stated that there was nothing on the record to show that the decree being conditional was in terms satisfied so as to become executable. Payment having been made to the vendees outside the court was not of avail to them. Finally it is contended that the very fact that the mutation giving effect to such a decree was rejected would show that it was an untenable claim.
9. The High Court has held and we consider rightly that the earlier decision of the Rehabilitation Commissioner decided finally certain matters, particularly with regard to the legal effect of the decree, of the civil Court. The revenue records had to be seen with a view to verify the further contention of the respondents that it was partly given effect to in the revenue record and the non- attestation of the mutation was not on account of any conditions of the decree remaining unsatisfied but on account of the whole--sale migration of the population from there. This contention has been amply borne out by the subsequent consultation that took place with the original record. No document or other material on the record indicated that the condi--petition attaching to the decree remained unsatisfied. As regards the discrepancy of the dates with regard to the entry of the mutation, if at all existing and remaining unexplained, could impair only the utility of the mutation and not of the decree of the civil Court. In the circumstances the decree having been accepted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner had to be -given effect to and the decision of the High Court suffered from no such infirmity as may require interference. -As regards the rights of the vendees from the subsequent allottees and, the informer, they all arise pending dispute over the claim of the respondents and are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and are subject to the result of the litigation. All the three petitions are therefore dismissed.