SHAEI-UR-REHMAN J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant Umra and others to examine whether on the basis of subsequent accretion to his verified claim, he could get re-allotment of the land which was resume from him being in excess of his claim and allotted to respondents Nos. 2 to
7. I
2. The appellant is a sitting allottee of Chak 24/W. B., Tehsil Vehari now District Veharh He submitted his claim form which was received after verification in the estate and he received allotment to the extent of 1969 P. I. Units on 25-1-1951 in complete satisfaction of it. On 9-2-1955 Fazal Muhammad, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint as an informer against Umra appellant that he had secured 58 bighas of land in excess of his true entitlement. Proceedings were taken on this information and the claim of Umra was sent for reverification to the Central Record Office. On revivification it was reduced and finally the entitlement of the appellant stood at 948 P. I. Units. The Additional Revenue Assistant/Ex---Officio Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), by an order dated I1-12-1955 directed that the excess allotment to the appellant should be resumed and allotted after such resumption to the informer. This order was implemented in R. L. II on 8-2-1957 when suitable reduction in the allotment to the appellant was made and an allotment to the extent of 624 P. I.
Units was resumed from him. The other part of the same order was implemented on 23-9-1957 when the land resumed from the appellant on the information of respondent No. 3 was allotted to him on the basis of his being an informer. The appellant did not object to either the reduction in the verified area, or to the resumption of the excess land or to its allotment to the respondent. What he challenged by means of Constitutional petition was a general order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner passed on 23rd of November, 1976 whereby all the allotments made in that Tehsil were, in exercise of the sun motu powers of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, set aside. The respon- -dents were not parties to that petition. He succeeded in that petition and the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner was declared to the without lawful authority. In getting his rights protected on the basis of the declara--petition so granted in the constitutional petition he wanted the re-allotment of the excess area which was earlier resumed and allotted to respondent No. 3.
There were two additional grounds pleaded by him and these were that on the basis of a correction slip whereby the soil of land abandoned by him in India had been reclassified, his units bad increased by 214, and that there was accretion of 393 units on the death of his sister whose claim he inherited to that extent. .In the settlement hierarchy the Settlement Commis--sioner repelled this claim of the petitioner on the ground that the appellant bad submitted to the resumption of the excess area and to its allotment and that the accretion to his basic entitlement had taken place after the allotment had been made to the respondent. He challenged this decision of the Settlement Commissioner by a constitutional petition which too was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant in the first place wanted to assail the finding of fact that the accretions to the entitlement of the appellant from the inheritance of his sister and on account of reclassification of soil had taken place after the allotment of the land to the respondent. He also wanted to challenge the allotment of respondents on the basis of tests laid down by the Rehabilitation Commissioner in his general sun motu revisional order whereby after setting aside the earlier allotments he had directed that future allotments should conform to that. Standard.
3. So far as the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities is concerned, it cannot be avoided at this stage or interfered with on the basis of a stray entry in R. L. II Register with regard to the date of accretion to the entitlement of the appellant. The rights of the informers, which position the respondent, enjoyed, are traceable to para. 71-A of the Reha--bilitation Scheme as it was then in force, which was given effect to by the D. R. C. (Land) as would appear from the following recital in the order, of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), dated 2-2-1966 :- "On 9-2-1955 Fazal Muhammad respondent had filed a complaint as informer against Umar appellant to the effect that the latter had secured 58 bighas of land in excess of his claim. Central Record Office Lahore verified that Umra appellant was entitled to only 948 produce index units whereas he had wrongly obtained allotment of land equivalent to 1569 produce index units. The claim form of the respondents transferred to Chak 24/W. B. By the order of the Additional Revenue Assistant/Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), dated 11-12-1956 with the direction that the excessive units of Umra appellant shall be cancelled and allotted to the respondent as informer:"
The Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 28-4-1967 recorded the finding that the appellant received more P.
1. Units from Mst. Nur Bakhsh by mutation No. 174 decided on 31-1-1959. He also held that the baishi in his claim form took place on 31-12-1958. He gave preference to the informer and rejected the revision of the respondent on the following grounds :- "The allotment had been made to the respondents after the order of revision passed by Mr. I. U.
Khan on 23-11-1956. It was in their capacity as informers and they were rightly given preference over the petitioner or any other allottee of the chak with regard to the excess area cancelled from the name of the petitioner. At the time of the cancellation of the area of the petitioner had not received any excess units due to inheritance and the beshi in his claim form No. 2, 15 also took place on 31-12-1958. Which was subsequent to the order of the cancellation dated 8-2-1957."
4. It is clear from the recital of the facts and the findings recorded by the authorities having jurisdiction in the matter that the appellant submitted to the resumption and to the allotment of the resumed land to the respondent. He did not then challenge it on the ground that he had an claim pending which required satisfaction. Whatever accretion took place was subsequent to such allotment and such accretion could not justify the retrospective reopening of the allotment made to the informer who had in terms of the instructions in the field a right in the property resumed on the basis of the information supplied by him. In the circumstances, we find that none of the rights of the appellant has been infringed and the dismissal of his Constitutional petition was amply justified. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to their own costs.