1. HAMOODUR REHMAN C. J.-The petitioners who are the heirs of one Abdul Ghani Shah have come up to this Court for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine their appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. It appears that the said Abdul Ghani Shah was allotted agricultural lands measuring 269 kanals in Chak No. 125/N. B. Of District Sargodha as the son of one Imdad A.I Shah. In 1962, however, an application was filed by two persons alleging that the allotment had been obtained fraudulently as the said Abdul Ghani Shah was not a son of Imdad A.I Shah but only his murid. An enquiry was held on the basis of this complaint, and in the course thereof, Abdul Ghani Shah, who was then alive, was himself examined. He admitted that he was not the son of Imdad A.I Shah but only his murid and Manager of the property of Khanqah Miran Sahib of Taska in village Deria, District Ambala (India). The allotment in favour of Abdul Ghani Shah was, therefore, cancelled. He went up in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner who accepted the same on the 21st of January 1964, and upheld the right of Abdul Ghani Shah to inherit the Trust properties of Imdad A.I Shah in his capacity of a murid; but since the District of Sargodha was a congested area he held that claims in respect of Trust property could not be registered there. It was, however, ordered that Abdul Ghani Shah's possession should not be disturbed till his claim form was received back after re-verification.
3. The complainants went up in revision from this order. The Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision, but in his order reiterated that, since allotments in lieu of Trust property could not be made in a congested area, the claims should be met from non-congested areas. However, he too ordered that "the allot--ment so far made will stand till such time as available area is not allotted as against the same claim in some non-congested area".
4. The complainants came up to the High Court by Writ Petition No. 756-R of 1965, but this too was dismissed on the 20th of January 1969. In the meantime, Abdul Ghani Shah died. His heirs did not take any steps to get his claim transferred to a non-congested area. Therefore, on the 17th of April 1970, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha, in imple--mentation of the order of the Settlement Commissioner, directed the ejectment of the petitioners. They went up on appeal which was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) so far as their entitlement was concerned, but he too directed that they should get their claim transferred to some non- congested area within one month. They went up in revision from this order to the Settlement Commissioner, who, on the 20th of April 1971, dismissed the revisions with the direction that "if the petitioners do not get their claim transferred by 25-4-1971, the same should be forwarded through proper channel to the competent authority for transfer to any non-congested area where evacuee land is available." Then he went on to add that "till the petitioners get alternative land in non- congested area as a result of this transfer they should not be ejected from their present land in Chak No. 125/NB."
5. This was the order which the petitioners challenged in the High Court by Writ Petition No. 489-R of 1971. This was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge and a Letters Patent appeal has also met the same fate.
6. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal. It is contended on their behalf that the Settlement Commissioner has, by his order of the 20th of April 1971, revised the earlier order which allowed them to continue in possession of the lands in their allotment till alternative land was granted to them. This is, however, incorrect, as it would appear from the concluding portion of the order, which has been quoted above, that "till alternative land is allotted to them they should not be thrown out of Chak No. 125/NB." It cannot therefore be said that they are aggrieved by this order. If this order is not being implemented, they should approach the Settlement Commissioner again and request him to have his own order implemented. It is not for the High Court or this Court to implement the orders of the Settlement Authorities.
7. The High Court, in our view, rightly refused to interfere with this order in its writ jurisdiction, and we see no reason to grant leave.
8. This petition. Is accordingly dismissed.