MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-The petitioner a claimant/displaced person was given temporary allotment of land in Chak No. 127/GB Tehsil Jaranwala, District (Faisalabad) Lyallpur in the year 1947.
Subsequently, when the' claims were invited the petitioner registered his claim for Chak 213/RB, District Lyallpur. The petitioner's claim was entered in RL-11 Register on 7-7-1952 and some area out of the Crown land proposed to be allotted to him but later on this was also cancelled and his claim was entered in RL-II Register of Chak No. 127/GB. The respondents then applied for being treated as sitting allottees of Chak No. 127/GB as orphan and widow of Niaz Din who had filed a claim earlier in Chak No. 362/JB Tehsil Toba Tek Singh which was later on cancelled and no objection was taken by Niaz Din. Niaz Din who was when alive, challenged the mutation of inheritance. Later on when he died on 5-11-1958 the petitioner filed two appeals challenging the allotment of land in Chak No. 127/GB. Both the appeals were against orders of allotment in favour of respondent dated 23-5-1956 and 30-1-1957. These appeals were dismissed. The petitioner then filed revision petitions which were accepted and the case was remanded to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner for further inquiry on three points (i) whether Niaz Din was alive on 26-4-19.58 the day he signed Wakalatnama and preferred the appeal against mutation of his inheritance; (ii)whether Niaz Din registered claim form for Chak No. 362/JB and it was regular or through back door transferred to this estate, namely Chak No. 127/GB and (iii) if after a detailed inquiry, Niaz Din is found to be alive, intiqaal virasat be reviewed. After inquiry the D. R. C. Submitted his report. The respondent then filed two revision petitions against the order of the D. R. C. Which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the writ petition was also dismissed. Their L. P. A. Met the same fate. They then filed a Review Petition which was accepted and the L. P. A. Was partially allowed by the L P. A. Bench while remanding the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner in terms of remand order dated 3-11-1959. The learned Bench also further directed to go into the question of validity of order dated 26-10-1948 cancelling the temporary allotment of Niaz Din and whether the allotment of Bashir respondent is liable to be cancelled on the basis of information given by the petitioner and lastly whether the petitioner had a preferential right of allotment as compared with the respondent. The petitioner filed C. P: S. L. A. 53/1970 which was dismissed by this Court holding that the learned Judges of High Court had not expressed any firm opinion on any point and had left the matter entirely to the discretion of the Rehabilitation authorities and the case had been sent back to determine the dispute in accordance with the order of remand of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 3-11-1959. These matters were disposed of by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in favour of the petitioner. Appeal was filed by the respondents which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Settlement Commissioner. Then the respondents filed another writ petition before the Lahore High Court which reversed the finding of the tribunal i. e. The Settlement authorities.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view, o" the clear and definite finding of this Court the Settlement authorities were not precluded or disqualified from coming to their own conclusions on the various issues raised both in the order of remand of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and the judgment dated 22-11-1969 of the High Court. The contrary view taken by the learned Judge in Chamber in this second round of litigation is not sustainable in the eye of law. H further contended that the disputed questions of facts do not form a proper subject for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction especially when the tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction has come to a finding on evidence on the record and there has been no misreading thereof. In this case the Settlement Commis--sioner disposed of three issues raised by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 3-11-1959 in the order of remand and held that Niaz Din was neither a sitting allottee of Chak 127/GB nor Ghulam Muhammad or the heirs of Niaz Din. Thus, conclusion was arrived at by the Settlement Commissioner that Niaz Din could not successfully compete with the petitioner who is the sitting allottee of the Chak and also is a displaced person refugee.
3. We have considered the questions raised by the learned counsel and find that there is substance in the points raised by him. Even the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court observed in the impugned judgment "It is true that petitioners cannot claim the status of sitting allottees. Admittedly, Niaz Din did not take advantage of, the temporary allotment in Chak No. 127/GB and took no steps after-the same was cancelled or allotted to Aziz Din, etc. Instead he filed his claim for Chak No. 362/GB which clearly meant that he wanted his claim to be satisfied there. The subsequent application by Bashir Ahmad, etc. Petitioners praying the land may be allotted against the claim of Niaz Din in Chak No. 127/GB shall also not entitle them to claim the status of a sitting allottee for the reasons given above." Leave is, therefore, granted to consider the above points. Security Rs. 2,500 (rupees two thousand and five hundred). To be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if desired.