1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The vendees from the allottees of a bogus claim seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 3-7-1983 and 26-12-1982 whereby the constitutional petitions filed by them were dismissed.
2. In the first round of litigation which came up to this Court the allotment was held to be bogus and the informer was held entitled to the benefits accruing to him under the law. When the matter came up before the Settlement authorities for compensating the informer from the resumed land the petitioners-vendees from the erstwhile allottee objected alleging that the claim of the informer was inflated and that he had no pending claim awaiting satisfaction and was not entitled to any part of the property. On the contrary, the petitioners claimed the sale of the property in their favour under the repealing Evacuee Laws as according to them such a property would vest in the Provincial Government and would be available for disposal under the law. Their claim was rejected in the settlement hierarchy and also in the constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of a report obtained from the Central Record office during the pendency of the constitutional petitions in the High Court urged that the matter of the genuineness and correctness of the claim of the informer was very much a pending matter and had to be disposed of in accordance with law and the inquiry into that fact could not be shut out. It is further contended that the material record hay, been ignored in recording the finding of fact that his claim did not appear to be forged or inflated. Finally, it is contended that if the informer does not have a subsisting interest in the resumed property then it will devolve on the petitioners as under the repealing Evacuee Laws they are entitled being its bona fide purchaser and being in possession So far as the locus standi of the informer and his entitlement to reap the benefits of the litigation is concerned, it could not be denied to him by taking up a new ground whit h was available to the petitioners while they were litigating when they earlier come to this Court. Having not raised any such question then they would be precluded from such raising a question unless they can demonstrate that they were prevented by a good cause from raising it at that stage.
4. We had the benefit of ex0mining the report obtained by the High Court from the Central Record office the correct copy of which was, produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners but find that the matter stood concluded before the repeal of Evacuee Laws by the final verification of the entitlement of the informer. The matter was sought to be re-opened after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws and it could not be done.
5. Finally, we find that with regard to the forgery and the genuineness of the verified claim to finding of fact has been recorded and at this stage and in these proceedings it would be futile to go on reagitating the same matter over again, as it appears to be concluded A by a finding of fact properly recorded by the Tribunal charged with a duty of administering that law. In the 'ether petition, the vendees want to protect their possession on th0 /slid against the informer who is entitled to the allotment of the land. The possession follows the allotment and adjustment of the verified pending claim of the informer and the vendees have to yield to the better Entitlement. We find no merit in these petitions and leave to appeal is refused.