1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-These two petitions have been heard together as they concern the same subject-matter and they are being disposed of under one order.
2. Petition No. 271 of 1972 is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing tile petitioners' Writ Petition No. 117/1 of 1966. This Constitution Petition was directed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 29th December 1965, passed in revision. By this order, the Settlement Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lauds), dated the 25 ' October 1963, allotting Killas Nos. 8, 12/2 to 19 of Square No. 20 situated in Chak No. 285/ J. B. To the respondents. The Settle--ment Commissioner observed that the order, dated the 25 October 1963, was passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, which could not be challenged before any other Settlement Authority and that the petitioners has failed to prove their entitlement to retain the resumed area. The learned Single Judge while disposing of this writ petition observed that in view of the finding of the Settlement Commissioner that the order of the Deputy Rehabilita--petition Commissioner, dated the 25th October 1963, was passed as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners should have challenged the initial order, dated the 25th October 1963. The petitioners had filed the aforesaid writ petition in January 1966, and they impugned i2, the writ petition. The order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 29th December 1965, only. The petitioners were, accordingly, found guilty of ]aches.th th It appears that the dispute has had a chequered career, On production of the relevant records and the examination of witnesses it was found that at more than one stage the petitioners were guilty of obtaining orders in Weir favour on the basis of forged documents and interpolations and in this regard the following observation of the learned Single Judge may be noted "I find that practically all the relevant records concerning the entitlement of Ata Elahi and his brothers have been tampered with."
3. The Central Record Office, on having received complaint against the petitioners reverified the Fard Haqqiyats issued in favour of the petitioners and found that the land verified in favour of the petitioners were greatly increased by means of forgeries for example, that of Ata Elahi was increased from 2 Bighas, 18 Biswa s acid 4 Biswansis to 12 Bighas, 18 Biswas and 4? Biswansis. It was inter alia found that not only the record received from India had been tampered with, but even the Robkar from O. S. D., Central Record Room had been forged. The learned Judge, accordingly, found that the petitioners are not entitled to land more than what has been shown by the Central Record Office on reverification.
4. It was, however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners claimed inheritance from their uncle Umra and the relevant record (Annexure `D') showed that this matter was referred to the Central Record Room, Lahore, but no verification had been received from there. The learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly observed that there was nothing on the record to substantiate the claim of the petitioners and that Ala a Elahi' inheritance had not been decided by any competent authority The learned Judge, therefore, refrained from making an" observation on this point.
5. Petition No. 294 of 1972 is by Rahim Bakhsh who appear; to be a cousin of the petitioners (in Petition No. 271 of 1972 and he claimed the excess lands on the ground of his being the informer. The learned Single Judge has, on a consideration of the relevant materials, found that Rahim Bakhsh colluded with the petitioners in bolstering up the latter's claims. The learned Judge, accordingly, observed that Rahim Bakhsh could not reap the fruits of his collusion and dishonesty. The learned Judge, however, observed that Rahim Bakhsh was an informant and, as such, he had no vested interest in the property and, therefore, had no locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
6. Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
7. We should, however, like to observe that if and when any reverification of the claims of the petitioners in regard to their claim of inheritance from their uncle Umra is received from the Central Record Room, Lahore, and the report is in favour of the petitioners, they may proceed according to law to secure the inheritance of the aforesaid Umra.