' ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.-- The dispute in this case relates to evacuee agricultural land comprised in Khasra No,9 of Square No, 30 situate in Chak No, 180/K.B., Tehsil and District Vehari. It was temporarily allotted to the petitioner Allah Bakhsh in 1947, but subsequently this allotment was cancelled, and the land was allotted and confirmed on the 30th of June, 1952, in favour of Fazla father of respondent No,2 against his verified claim. The petitioner did not agitate against this allotment and confirmation.
2. By an omnibus order made on 23rd November, 1956, the Rehabilitation Commissioner, set aside all the allotments of evacuee land made in this village. This order was challenged by Fazla and 19 others by means of writ petition 605-R of 1958, which was accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court by his order dated the 20th of January, 1980, and the Rehabilitation Commissioner's order was declared as being without lawful authority. A letters Patent Appeal was filed against this order, but the same was dismissed and later a petition for special leave to appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
3. Some other writ petitions, bearing Nos. 2549-R of 1962, 2457-R of 1963, 2408-R of 1963 and 1393-R of 1963 were instituted by other parties to challenge similar orders made by the Rehabilitation Commissioner in respect of some other villages. Writ Petition 280-R of 1972 and 298-R of 1972 were filed by some allottees of the present Chak, and petitioner Allah Bakhsh was one of the petitioners in the first mentioned writ petition. These petitions were decided on the 12th of October, 1976, and it was held by the High Court that the rights of the petitioners were not affected by the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition 605-R of 1958 as they were not parties thereto. Thereupon respondent No,2 and others filed civil petition for special leave to appeal bearing No,1037 of 1976 in this Court, but the same was dismissed on the 31st of March, 1977. A review petition against this order was also dismissed.
4. It appears that after obtaining a decision from the High Court that the rights of the petitioner were not affected by the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition 605-R of 1958 the petitioner obtained fresh allotment of the disputed land from the Field Staff on 3-12-1978. This allotment was challenged by respondent No,2 by means of Writ Petition 207-R of 1979, which was allowed by the High Court on the 25th of November, 1979. The petitioner thereupon filed an intra-Court appeal, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 22-11-1980. We now seek leave to appeal against this order.
5. The learned Judges in the High Court have expressed the view that the temporary allotment of the disputed Khasra number had been cancelled from the name of the petitioner in 1951, and the land was confirmed in the name of the respondent on 30th of June, 1952; but the petitioner never challenged this confirmation, with the result that it had attained finality, when the omnibus order of Mr. I.U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner, was passed on 23-11-1956. When Mr. I.U. Khan's order was set aside by the High Court in Writ Petition No,605-R of 1958, the disputed land remained allotted and confirmed in favour of the respondent, and was not available for allotment to the petitioner, with the result that the order of allotment obtained by him on the 3rd of December, 1978, had to be set aside.
6. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to Writ Petition 605-R of 1958, instituted by the respondent, and, therefore, as held the High Court in the subsequent petition filed by the petitioner, namely 280-R of 1972, the petitioner was not bound by the orders made by the High Court in the earlier writ petition of the respondent. It appears to the learned counsel that, as a consequence, the petitioner continued to retain his right to obtain the disputed land as a temporary allottee of the same, and the learned Judges in the High Court were in error in not giving him the benefit of the judgment of the High Court in the subsequent Writ Petition 280-R of 1972, in which it was clearly held that the petitioner's rights remained unaffected by the earlier judgment of the High Court dated the 29th of January, 1960.
7. We do not see any merit in these submissions. As already stated, the allotment of the disputed land from the name of the petitioner was cancelled in 1951, and the land was then allotted and confirmed in the name of Fazla, father of respondent No,2, in 1952. As the petitioner did not agitate against this allotment and confirmation, the same became A final against him. When Mr. I.U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation Commissioner, passed general orders cancelling all the allotments of evacuee land in this particular village, it was only the respondent, who was affected, and he got relief from the High Court in Writ Petition No, 605-R of 1958. It was not necessary for the respondent to implead the respondent petitioner in these proceedings, for the petitioner's rights, if any, already stood terminated in 1952. The subsequent declaration obtained by the petitioner in writ petition 280-R of 1972 to the effect that his rights would not be affected by the earlier judgment of the High.
Court dated the 29th of January, 1960, was. Of no value to the petitioner, as his rights were not being affected by the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition 605-R of 1958, as they already stood extinguished by the order of the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities passed in 1952, against which he had not agitated at the proper time and before its proper confirmation by way of appeal and revision. The subsequent litigation referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no bearing on his rights and entitlement to the disputed land. It seems to us, therefore, that both the Benches in the High Court were right in taking the view that the petitioners' rights could not be revived as amounts (sic) of the subsequent litigation initiated by him in the year 1972. The petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.