' Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, on verification of their claim, were made allotment on 14-3-1961. A Deputy Settlement Commissioner coming a year later thought that the units calculated for the land given to the respondents was incorrect and that the respondents should ose land to the extent of 251 and 279 Units, respectively. He so ordered on 12-9-1962 and the land was allotted to the appellants on 28-11-1963 The respondents filed an application in 1965 before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner saying that his predecessor had erroneously calculated the applicants allotment and that the applicants allotment originally made was rightly calculated and confirmed.
The plea was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20-4-1970. The appellants filed a revision petition which was allowed and case remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Chunian "to hear both the parties and have the claim of the respondents recalculated thoroughly and then give his decision in respect of true entitlement of the respondents. If the D.S.C. (L), Chunian feel that the allotment made in favour of respondents in March, 1961 was correct, then the petitioners may be allotted some other land to satisfy their claim or if he agreed with the calculation resulting in the decision of D.S.C. (L), Chunian, dated 12-9-1962, then the allotment made in favour of the petitioners on 28-11-1963 may be restored." This is vide order, dated 6-3-1971.
In remand proceedings, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner got the calculation made all over again and came to the conclusion that the respondents had allotment within their entitlement. This is vide order, dated 31-12-1973. This was challenged by the appellants through a revision petition which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division vide order, dated 20-4-1974.
This was challenged by the appellants through Writ Petition No. 1287-R of 1974 which has been dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge vide order, dated 13-11-1974 on the finding that there was "neither any illegality nor lack of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the Settlement authorities".
Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that at the preliminary stage a learned Division Bench of this Court called for a report from Mr. Razi Haider, Naib-Tehsildar, Central Record Office and therefrom it appeared prima facie that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 held excess allotment. In these circumstances, the appeal was admitted to regular hearing. It is contended that in view of the statement of Mr. Razi Haider, Naib-Tehsildar, the respondents are holding excess allotment and are liable to lose the same and the appellants are entitled to the restoration of their allotment which was made after the cancellation of the excess units from the names of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 13-11-1974, the Letters Patent Appeal filed on 3-12-1974 is not competent because of the proviso to section 3 of Act 8 of 1972 whereby it was laid down "that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 201 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal to any Court, tribunal or authority against the original order".
Learned counsel submitted that against the original order of allotment in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, an appeal was competent under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
Therefore, no Letters Patent Appeal could be filed. He placed reliance on PLD 1984 SC 344. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the allotment in favour of the respondents was calculated in the first instance and had been re-calculated twice over and it has been found that the allotment is within their entitlement. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to remain in peace.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the A record with their assistance. It is quite clear that the calculation of 1' units made and allotment confirmed in favour of the appellants on 14-3-1961 was not liable to be interfered with by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 12-9- 1962, without any appeal or revision before him. It was restored in their favour on 20-4-1970.
Nonetheless on appellants' revision petition, the matter was remanded and was examined by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as well as by the Settlement Commissioner and both having got re-calculation, came to the conclusion that the allotment in favour of the respondents was within their entitlement. The order have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. The matter is squarely concluded by finding of fact and no interference is called for in this Appeal. Further, the appeal itself is not competent in view of the proviso and the decision quoted by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs, in the circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were allowed to be allotted some other land if they were to lose the one in dispute vide order of the Settlement Commissioner (L), dated 6-3-1971 and as 'pending' case under section 2 of Act XIV of 1975, they are so entitled.
Therefore, a direction should be issued. The appellants should approach the relevant authorities for relief.