The facts of this case having been already given in detail in my judgment dated 28-3-1982 rendered in the case of Writ Petitions Nos. 1798-R, 1508-R and 1831-R of 1976 which were disposed of jointly, need not be reiterated. The operative part of this judgment is reproduced below:- "For the foregoing reasons Writ Petitions Nos. 1798-R/176 and 1831--"/176, are dismissed as being without any merit. Writ Petition No. 1508--"/176, is accepted and the impugned order declared to having been passed without any lawful authority. The case is remanded to the learned Member (S & R Wing), Board of Revenue, to assign it to an officer notified under section 2(2) of Act XV of 1975 who shall hold an inquiry as to the existence of statement dated 12-10-1959 referred to in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 9-12-1959. If he comes to the conclusion that such a statement was made by Abdur Rehman, the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 20-6-1961 shall stand restored and the petitioner's revision shall be treated as rejected; on the other hand, if the statement of the year 1960 is found to be the concerned statement, the impugned order shall be restored. In either case the transfer of portion of the house to Sher Muhammad and Imdad A.I shall remain undisturbed."
2. In pursuance of the remand order Additional Commissioner.(Revenue), Faisalabad, exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 14-12-1983 under challenge in this writ petition maintained that:- " ---.. I am of the firm view that Abdur Rehman respondent abandoned his claim through his statement dated 12-10-1959 and the D 6 C., Faisalabad correctly excluded him in his order dated 9- 12-1959. The statement of 1960 was not genuine at all as is clear from the orders of various authorities till the final order was passed by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 12-7-1962. After that the statement of 1960 was coined. It was not relied upon by Mr. Justice Mushtaq Hussain while passing the order dated 28-2-1966 disposing of the writ petition No. 2174 of 1962.
So I hold that the statement of Abdur Rehman dated 12-10-1959 was authentic and there was no genuine statement made in 1960. Consequently according to the order of the High Court dated 28- 3-1982, the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Mr. Ajam Khan passed on 20- 6-1961 which excluded Abdur Rehman shall stand restored and the petition of Abdur Rehman stands rejected."
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that the impugned order is in conflict with the D.B. Decision dated 6-12-1967 passed in L.P.A. No. 743/66 and thus cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the order under challenge has the effect of restoring the Settlement Commissioner's order dated -20- 6-1961, which was earlier set aside by the Division Bench on 22-4-1976. In the submission of the learned counsel, Ghulam Muhammad respondent is a non-claimant and he cannot be preferred over the petitioner, who is a claimant.
4. These contentions are not entitled to any weight for the case had been remanded to the Settlement Authorities for decision on a limited point alluded to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. The learned notified officer could p not go beyond the remand order and had to act within the ambit of direction given therein. In case these arguments are entertained now this Bench would be travelling beyond its own order dated 28-3-1982 which has attained finality. The contentions aforesaid, therefore, do not merit consideration.
5. The only other argument advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel is that the finding given by the Tribunal below suffers from misreading of the record. According to him, the petitioner made only one statement of the year 1960 to the effect that he wanted transfer of only half of the house, and that the statement attributed to him in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 9- 12-1959, never existed. Thus the latter statement was completely denied by the petitioner.
6. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. The notified officer on the basis of the record before him has given a definite finding of fact that by virtue of his statement dated 12-10-1959 the petitioner abandoned his claim as to transfer of the house in his name. In the impugned order it is specifically mentioned that the statement of the year 1960 is not genuine and that of 12-10-195x) is an authentic one. The petitioner has failed to show any misreading of the record and dislodge the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal below. There is thus no valid basis to reopen the case.
7. For all these reasons, this writ petition having been found without any merit, is dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.