' The petitioners, have filed this petition seeking the following relief:- "Declare that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)
Thatta and the Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sind, Hyderabad, dated 2-5-1970 and 20-12-1973 respectively were made without lawful authority and are of no legal effect."
' The respondent No, 3 is a displaced person having a verified claim for allotment of agricultural land. In pursuance of his entitlement he was allotted 36500 Produce Index Units of agricultural land in District Thatta in different villages in Taluka Mirpur Bothoro. On promulgation of M.L.Rs, Nos. 89 and 91 the entitlement of respondent No, 3 was reduced to 5350 P.I. Units. The respondent No, 3 retained the land selected by him and surrendered the surplus land. In exercise of the option allowed to the respondent No, 3 he purchased 29078 P.I. Units equal to 1211.23-1/2 Acres of land situated in Deh Khanpur, Liaqpur Ohlando and Abral, Taluka Mirpur Bothoro. Out of the land purchased by the respondent No, 3 he entered into an agreement to sell 28,550 P.I. Units equal to 1085.35 Acres of land to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 10 under ten separate agreements for sale, dated 12-2-1964, which were in identical terms except the land the price. It is alleged that in pursuance of these agreements Rs,73,342 were paid by the petitioners to the respondent No, 3 and a further sum of 118.12,487 was paid to the Government as installment price and in part performance of the agreements the respondent No, 3 delivered possession of the respective land to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 10, and also executed power of attorney in the name of their nominees. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of these documents the petitioners claim that the property has been transferred. It is an admitted position that under the relevant Scheme sale of land could not be effected unless and until the entire price due and payable to the Government was fully paid. The petitioner claims to be in continuous possession and developed the land by huge investments. It is alleged that the respondent No, 3 fraudulently and without notice to the petitioner got 219.24 Acres of such surrendered land in Deh Khanpur Ohlando, Laiqpur got reallotted to himself by the Rehabilitation Commissioner and Khatunis were issued in his favour. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No, 3 and after holding inquiry by order, dated 29-3-1968 the re-allotment of the said surrendered land to the respondent No, 3 was cancelled and the entire allocation order, dated 26-10-1961 was also cancelled. The petitioners and respondent No, 3 both filed appeal against that order. After the remand the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) passed an order, dated 2-5-1970 and upheld the allotment made in favour of respondent No,
3. The petitioners then filed a revision petition against this order which was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 20-12-1973 passed by respondent No,
1. The petitioners have now challenged the impugned order by this petition.
' The basis of the petitioner's claim is that under agreements for sale the respondent No, 3 had transferred the property to them and they have no locus stand to intervene in the proceedings. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners on the basis of the said agreements in their favour had filed suits for declaration being Suits Nos. 25 and 34 of 1972 in the Court of civil Judge, Thatta. In these suits the petitioners had prayed for declaration that they have right to remain in exclusive possession over the suit land in terms of the sale agreement executed by the respondent No, 3 and that a permanent injunction restraining the respondent No, 3 may be granted from transferring the suit property to any other persons except the petitioners and from interfering with their respective possession on the land. The respondent No, 3 contested the suit and took the plea that the agreements have been cancelled and so also the power-of-attorney executed by him. The learned trial Court by judgment, dated 31-10-1978 dismissed the suit. The petitioners filed appeals before the District Judge, Thatta and by judgment, dated 18th December, 1980 the appeals have been dismissed. These facts are not disputed by the petitioners, The learned counsel for the parties stated that the appellate order has not been challenged any further and no proceeding is pending in Court.
' It is thus clear that the very basis of entitlement of the petitioners has been decided by a Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction, and the same question cannot be allowed to be agitated again in these proceedings. In view of these facts the petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.
' Mr. Abdul Sattar states that the petitioners may be allowed to file suit for recovery of the amount paid by them. No such permission is required if the party is entitled to take such action under law.