' This petition is directed against the order dated 2-9-1972 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (L), Multan, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim form was submitted in the name of Patalia for verification of land left in India. It is not denied that the said claim was submitted by Umaid Khan one of the petitioners. It was he who got it entered in the relevant register and also got the same attested.
3. After Patalia was shown to have died, his land was inherited by Mangu vide mutation No, 20, dated 19-10-1953 and on his death the property was mutated in favour of the petitioners vide mutation No, 1090.
4. An application was submitted before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the cancellation of the allotment initially made in favour of Patalia and subsequently made in favour of Mangu and the petitioners. This application was accepted on the ground that Patalia never migrated to Pakistan and as such question of verification of his land did not arise and no land could be allotted to him in lieu of the property allegedly left by him in India. Necessary inquiry in this behalf was conducted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) and it was found that Patalia had never come to Pakistan.
This finding was affirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who further afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to show that the said claimant had migrated to Pakistan. But in the absence of any satisfactory proof having been furnished by the petitioners, allotment of land in favour of Patalia was cancelled.
5. It has been found in the impugned order that at different stages before the authorities concerned none of the persons namely, Patalia or Mangu ever appeared for confirmation of land or transfer of the same in mutation proceedings. It was Umaid one of the petitioners who has been appearing before the said authorities on behalf of the claimant as well as Mangu. It has also been found that after the death of Mangu, Umaid appeared before the relevant authority and showed himself to be the real brother of the deceased, and on that basis got the property mutated in his favour while it is not denied that he is the son of one Mawasi who was son of Khairati brother of Mst.
Mamli who was the wife of Dhanpat brother of Chakmal. The relationship as mentioned above was admitted by Umaid petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner while the land was got mutated by him in his favour as real brother of Mangu. In the circumstances the finding of the Settlement Commissioner that the land in question was got allotted and later on mutated by the petitioners due to fraud needs no interference. The petitioners have been shifting their stand at different stages in order to grab the property. They have not shown that the alleged claimant Patalia ever came to Pakistan. If it is so then no land could be allotted in his name and question of inheriting the same after the death of Mangu does not arise in the circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition has no force which is hereby dismissed in limine.