1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J-- The dispute between the parties is in respect of Khasra No. 3261/1/1, measuring one kanal, situated in the urban area of Shahdara town. This land was allotted to Abdul Sattar deceased father of respondent No. 1, who was a claimant for urban agricultural land. The allotment remained in his name. In spite of this, by order dated the 16th March 1961, the above khasra number was included by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in the allotment of one Din Muhammad. Din Muhammad sold this land to Hassan Din petitioner No. 1 by means of a .Registered sale deed dated the 26th June 1961. Hassan Din sold 1 /4th of the land to Muhammad Bashir petitioner and 3/4th to Muhammad Rafiq petitioner. Muhammad Bashir petitioner sold his 1/4th share to petitioner Siraj Din. The petitioners are the successor-ii: interest of Din Muhammad.
2. Abdul Sattar, on coming to know that the land in dispute had been allotted to Din Muhammad, filed an appeal in the Court of Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was treated as a revision and was accepted by order dated the 1st April 1965, on the ground that Abdul Sattar being the temporary allottee of the land was entitled to have a transfer under the relevant law and that without cancelling his allotment, the land could not have been allotted to Din Muhammad. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 605/R of 1965, which was dismissed in limine on the 15th November 1965. The matter was taken in L. P. A. No. 183 of 1965, which was also dismissed on the 10th December 1971. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Mr. Shaukat A.I, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no valid allotment order in favour of respondents. There is only a report of the Patwari and, there--fore, the finding of the Settlement authorities that respondent's father Abdul Sattar deceased was a prior allottee is not based on proper evidence. This point has been raised for the first time before this Court. It being a question of fact cannot be raised for the first time before this Court.
4. It was next contended that the petitioners who are purchasers from Din Muhammad had not been given a right of hearing and, therefore, the order in question offends against the principles of natural justice. This aspect of the question was considered by the High Court and this point was rightly rejected. Admittedly, Abdul Sattar was the temporary allottee of the land in dispute since 1953 and under paragraph 24 of the Supplementary Scheme No. 2 to the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme he had a preferential right to have this land adjusted against urban agricultural land. Therefore, even if a right of hearing is given to the petitioners, there is no likelihood of any success. There is no force to the petition. The petition is dismisses used.