1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This appeal, by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed on 5-11-1975 in Writ Petition No. 1602-R of 1965.
2. The dispute in this Court concerns Killa Nos. 10, 11 and 20 of Square No. ? Situate in Chak No.147/EB, in Tehsil Pakpattan of the Sahiwal District. According to the appellants, these killa numbers were in the temporary allotment of their predecessor- in-interest, Mohammad Nawaz, since 1947, but they were wrongly proposed and confirmed in the names of the respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Mohammad Aslam Khan and his brother Mohammad Akram Khan on 29-10-1951. As this confirmation took place in the absence of to appellants and was not acted upon by delivery of possession, they did not become aware of the same until 1956, when they filed a general representation before the Rehabilitation Commissioner of the Province. Mr. I .U. Khan set aside all the allotments of this Chak and of some other villages by an order made on 11-11-1956.
3. Several writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 instituted by the respondents, were taken up together by the High Court and accepted on 15-11-1957. The order of Mr. I.U. Khan was set aside. As a result, the confirmations made in favour of the respondents stood restored. By an order made on 13-9-1963, formal effect was given by the Rehabilitation authorities to, this position. The appellants thereupon filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 15-3-1965 and their revision petition was dismissed 'by the Settlement Commissioner on 18-8-1965.
4. PLD 1966 SC 483 and the order of Mr. I.U. Khan was restored.
5. However, the order of Mr. I. U . Khan, dated 11-11-1956 was not given effect to by the Rehabilitation authorities, instead the position obtaining as a result of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 whereby the confirmations made in favour of respondent No.4, were restored continued.
6. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Rehabilitation authorities to give them the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment mentioned above the appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but their petition has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
7. Leave to appeal was inter alia granted to consider whether the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Mr. I. U. Khan's order in so far as the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.175 of 1957, whereby the order of the High Court setting aside Mr. I.U. Khan's order was itself reversed by this Court in Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1966 SC 483.
8. After hearing Ch. Ata Ullah on behalf of the appellants we are of the view that no interference with orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities, which were upheld by the High Court, is warranted.
9. It is an admitted position that no appeal was filed by the appellants before this Court to challenge the decision of the High Court given in Writ Petition No.175 of 1957. Accordingly, the allotment made to the respondents on 29-10-1951, which had been made much earlier to the order of Mr. 1.U. Khan dated 11-11-1956 and were restored by the High Court's order dated 15-11-1957 passed in Writ Petition No. 175 of 1957 became final. The appellants herein, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge the allotments made on 29-10-1951 having allowed them to become final, on the basis of the judgment of this Court to which they were not parties. A similar view has been taken by us in Pir Bakhsh v The Chairman Allotment Committee PLD 1987 SC 145.
10. The upshot is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.