' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- Ibrahim appellant had been allotted against his own entitlement, Killa Nos. 1,2, 3 and 9 in square No,33 of Chak No,22/W.B, District Vehari. In the same square, Killa Nos. 22, 23, 18, 12, 13 and 19, respectively had been allotted, in lieu of the claim of his brothers Ghulam Muhammad,who had died before coming to Pakistan, and Khushi Muhammad, who had died in Pakistan. As both brothers had died issuless, mutation of inheritance of their property was duly entered in the name of the appellant on 21-1-1953. Representations were, however, made against the allotments in the village, whereupon Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Chief Settlement Commissioner, on 4- 6-1953, directed for making fresh allotments. The land allotted in the name of the brothers was on 9-12-1953 allotted in favour of the respondents. Ultimately on 23-11-1966, Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, by a general order cancelled the entire allotment in the village and ordered allotments to be made afresh in accordance with the guidelines given by him. On 28- 1-1967, the Committee constituted for the purpose, allotted to the appellant Killa Nos. 1, 2, 3, 18 and 23/1 in square No,33 but allotted the land of his deceased brothers to respondents 4 to 14. The appellant agitated the matter by filing appeal, revision and Writ Petition No, 1739/R of 1976 but having failed throughout applied for leave to appeal and leave was granted to consider, inter alia, the question why he should have been deprived of the allotment of land in lieu of the share in the joint claim of his two deceased brothers.
2. The High Court duly noted the appellant's claim to inheritance from his brothers but dismissed his writ petition mainly for the reason that he had not expressly challenged the order, dated 28-1- 1967 whereby the land of his brothers, in pursuance of Mr. I. U. Khan's order, had been allotted in the name of the respondents. The memorandum of appeal which is at page 41 of the paper-book does show that the appeal which the appellant filed on 3-5-1967 was directed against the order, dated 9-12-1953 and there was no mention of the subsequent order of allotment in favour of the respondents dated 28-1-1967.
3. Learned counsel submits that the appellant's appeal was actually directed against the later order, that it was only by mistake that the order, dated 9-12-1953 had been mentioned in the title of the appeal and that as the later allotment, dated 28-1-1967 was in reality the same as the earlier one, the non-mention of the later allotment was not material. However, since there had been an order of 9-12-1953, the view taken by the High Court that the appeal had been directed only against that order and not the one dated 28-1-1967, is not without justification.
4. There is another circumstance which would support the view taken by the High Court. It appears that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had, earlier on 4-10-1963, held that "as Mr. Akhtar Hussain's order still stands, allotments will be made according to that order". An appeal and then a revision against this order having failed on 31-7-1965 and 17-6-1966, respectively, the appellant, who had been a party in the revision, filed Writ Petition No, 296-R of 1967 and when the same too failed on 16-9-1974, he moved Civil Petition No, 843 of 1974 for leave to appeal in this Court but it was dismissed on 10-12-1974 as withdrawn with the observation that petitioners can still challenge the allotment made in the year 1967, if such a course is still open to them under the law". Obviously these observations would not be invited had the appellant's appeal before the Settlement authority been directed against the order, dated 28-1-1967, for, in that case he could have submitted that he had already taken remedy before the appropriate forum. This shows that at least until 1974, he had not treated the appeal to be directed against the order dated 28-1-1967.
5. There is yet another fact against the appellant, in that, he, according to learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6, has purchased the land allotted to respondent No,7. This fact which is not denied by the appellant would show that he had in fact accepted and acquiesced in the allotment made in favour of the respondents.
6. For these above reasons, we find no valid justification to interfere with the order of the High Court.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.