1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 18-12-1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 694-R of 1972, whereby the aforementioned writ petition of the present petitioners was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that one Azimullah, a right-holder, died on 20-3-1950. His claim in respect of the land abandoned by him in India was verified on 5-2-1960. In lieu' of s this claim, his heirs Mst.
3. Soosi and others were allotted land in Viltage Baboolian, Tehsil Kasur in 1960-61. On the same claim, an allotment was made in the name of Azimullah on 10-3-1963 on the strength of a forged power- of-attorney in Khasra No. 161 in Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Gujranwala. The land covered by this allotment is in dispute in the present proceedings.
4. The land in dispute was in the temporary allotment of respondents 3 to 6. They, therefore, challenged the allotment in favour of Azimullah by filing an appeal but this was dismissed by order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Gujranwala on 21-2-1966. Aggrieved by this order, they file an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act for the cancellation of the aforesaid allotment made in favour of Azimullah. This petition succeeded and the allotment in favour of Azimullah was set aside. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had got the land in dispute allotted in their name on 17-7-1967 resting their claim on the basis of the entitlement of one Mst. Aisha Bibi. Consequently, despite the cancellation of the allotment in favour of Azimullah, the area was not restored to the respondents. The respondents, accordingly, filed an application for restoration of the area in dispute and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala restored it in their favour observing that they were temporary allottees and hence entitled to allotment of the land but their allotment file had been misplaced somewhere and in the meantime Faiz Muhammad Patwari by committing mischief allotted the land to others.
5. The Additional Settlement Commissioner further ordered that action be taken against Faiz Muhammad Patwari.
6. On 13-6-1969 a revision petition was filed in the name of Mst. Aisha Bibi claiming that she had been allotted this land on 17-7-1967 but the same had been cancelled without any notice to her.
7. However, when this petition came up for hearing on 5-7-1972, it was discovered that Mst. Aisha Bibi had already died on 26-2-1965 and had not appeared earlier at any stage before any authority and that the revision petition appeared to have been filed by somebody by impersonating her. The same was, accordingly, dismissed. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed a revision petition against the order, dated 12-5-1969 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands). They claimed the land in dispute as successors-in-interest of Aisha Bibi. The Learned Settlement Commissioner (L), Lahore Division, dismissed this revision holding, inter alia, that as the petitioners were claiming the land in dispute as successors-in-interest of Aisha Bibi the revision petition filed on her behalf having been rejected he had no jurisdiction to review that order. The said revision was, therefore, dismissed vide order, dated 7-10-1972. The petitioners, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court (W.P. No. 694-R of 1972) which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide his order, dated 18-12-1979 with the following observations:- "In view of the above discussion I hold that the allotment made in 1967 against the claim of Mst.
8. Aisha Bibi was fraudulent as has been held by the Settlement Authority in his order, dated 7th October, 1978. Mst. Aisha Bibi had died in 1965 and there was no prior temporary allotment in her favour. No valuable right had accrued to either Mst. Aisha Bibi or to her successors---in-interest, therefore, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petition."
9. The main point raised by Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners before us, was that the present petitioners being successors-in-interest of Mst. Aisha Bibi were necessary parties in the proceedings directed against cancellation of the allotment made in her favour, dated 17-7-1967 but they were neither issued any notice nor heard before the order, dated 7-10-1968, whereby the allotment was cancelled--or before the order, dated 12-5-1969--whereby the area was restored in favour of respondents 3-6 was passed.
10. There is no force in this submission. The allotment in favour of Mst. Aisha Bibi was allegedly made on 17-7-1967 whereas she had already died on 26-2-1965, according to the date supplied to us by the learned counsel for the petitioners himself. The allotment was, therefore, obtained as has been held by the Settlement Authorities by some lady impersonating her and the rights said to have been acquired by the petitioners on the basis of the said allotment have no value. In these circumstances, the failure to hear the petitioners before the orders, dated 7-10-1968 and 12-5-1969 were passed is of no consequence. Furthermore, the point raised before us does not appear to have been pressed before the learned Judge in the High Court, as no reference is made to it in his judgment. The respondents were clearly entitled to the disputed land being its temporary allottees and the Settlement Authorities, therefore, rightly confirmed the land in their favour.
11. For the foregoing reasons this is not at all a fit case for inter--ference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed hereby.