1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal by leave has arisen from the judgment and order dated 18-10- 1981 of the Sind High Court, whereby C.P. No, 1368 of 1974 of the appellant against the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) dated 29-6-1974, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are stated to be that the appellant is a claimant displaced person from non-agreed area. He was issued a Q.P.R. No, 1534/47 dated 30-4-1959, after the verification of his claim, for 22915 produce index units, including 11158 Chahi units, by the Central Record Office Lahore, for settlement at Hyderabad, under the Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellant was allotted 522. 24- 1/2 acres of agricultural land on the basis of the said Q.P.R. As alleged by the appellant, out of the total 522.24-1/2 acres of land, 222.11 acres was Flow land and the remaining 300. 13-1/2 acres was Banjar Qadim land. So the case of the appellant was that the entire land measuring 522.24-1/2 acres allotted to him was wrongly calculated at the rate of 40 P.I.Us. Per acre as Flow land because out of which 300.13-1/2 acres of land was Banjar Qadim which should have been calculated at the rate of 1/8th of the Flow land i.e, 5 P.I.Us. Per acre, according to the Correction Slip No, 2-P-1 dated 15-8-1957. So the total for both the categories of land comes to 10395 P.I.Us. But was wrongly calculated at 21125 P.I.Us. Thus causing the appellant a loss of 10730 P.I.Us. The appellant had also claimed that he was entitled to 10% extra allowance for 11158 Chahi units in accordance with para 26 Part II of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. As no share in a well had been given to the appellant, therefore, he was entitled to a total extra 11845 P.I.Us.
3. ' On promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No, 84 the appellant submitted his entitlement under O.P.R. For reverification as the allotment was to be made on the basis of such entitlement. This Regulation was therefore, amended by M.L.Rs, No, 89 and 91 under which limits were fixed for the entitlement of claimants and the land held in excess had to be surrendered. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was empowered to frame a scheme for disposal of such surrendered lands and a scheme was promulgated on 29-12-1961. The appellant received the revised entitlement on 26-9- 1961 vide MRV No, 3042/12005122 for 4042 P.I.Us. Including 2223 Chahi units. The appellant was also issued revised khatonies and adjustment of PlUs mentioned in his M.R.Vs. Were allowed to him against allotment held by him under his Q.P.Rs, and the remaining land was allowed to be purchased by him through exercise of option. No extra allowance of 10% for Chahi units was allowed to the appellant, although no Chahi land had been allowed to him. So the appellant's case was that only 97.5 acres of land in Deh Dasori Taluka Tando Allahyar consisting of 25.1 acres of Flow land and 72.4 acres of Banjar Qadim was allotted to the appellant and adjusted against his M.R.V.
4. Calculating the entire area at 40 P.I.Us. Per acre at the rate of Flow land and Banjar Qadim was totally ignored which has resulted a total loss of 2681 P.I.Us. Although the M.R.V. Contains 2023 Chahi units which gave the appellant equivalent of 222 P.I.Us. Concession was not allowed.
5. ' On 5-12-1967 the appellant filed an application before. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Hyderabad, raising objection with regard to the calculations. The said application was dismissed vide his order dated 24-1-1968. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Hyderabad. This appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) vide his order dated 29-6-1974. The appellant filed a Constitutional Petition before the Sind High Court at Karachi against the order dated 29-6-1974 of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Hyderabad. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the petition, dismissed the same vide his order dated 18-10-1981. Hence this petition by leave of the Court.
6. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as findings of the Courts below, we have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in this appeal which merits dismissal straightaway. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of the appellant should be dealt with in accordance with the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, read with Correction Slip No, 2-P-1 dated 15-8-1957. The learned counsel urged that since the land was allotted to the appellant in 1960, therefore, he had acquired a vested right for the settlement of his claim on the basis of the Scheme and the Correction Slip No,2-P-I. The learned counsel placed reliance on a reported case "Mst. Fidai Zuhra & others v. Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) PLD 1966 (W.P.) Kar.
79. It is a matter of record that there is no indication in the allotment order to the appellant about the classification of the land except that the land allotted to him was shown as Flow lands i.e, Nchri or Canal land and its value had been worked out at the rate of 40 Pills. Per acre and the appellant was fully satisfied with the same rate and classification of the land at that time. Moreover the appellant had never agitated the matter during the enforcement of the Correction Slip No,2-P-1 that his units should be recalculated on the basis of the said Correction Slip. Clause 1 (d) of Correction Slip No, 2-P-1 had been withdrawn vide Correction Slip No,4-P-1 dated 19-1-1962 and the remarks are significant to the effect that the deleted portion should be "deemed never to have existed". If the appellant had taken action for the settlement of his claim in time, in the light of the provisions of Correction Slip No, 2-P-1 then his case would have been identical with that of Mst.
7. Fidia Zuhra's case. However, no action had been taken by the appellant, therefore, his case did not fall within the purview of the above mentioned reported case but is of a different category.
8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings recorded in the impugned judgments of the Courts below are based on due and proper appreciation of evidence on record. The concurrent findings of the functionaries of the Settlement Department that the land allotted to the appellant was Flow land and not Banjar Qadim land cannot be possibly questioned. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant essentially relates to a question of fact, which has already been adjudicated upon by the learned Courts below after proper consideration of all the material on record, which has rightly not been interfered by the learned High Court in Constitutional Petition. In the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons we find that this appeal has no merit for consideration of this Court. We, therefore, dismiss the same with no order as to costs.