1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL -ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a writ petition which had arisen out of a dispute relating to the property which was jointly owned by Muslims and non-Muslims.
2. ' According to learned counsel the petitioners purchased land in dispute from the Muslim co- owners; while, it was also confirmed in allotment as compensation to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents' side on the assumption that it was the evacuee part of land in the joint ownership. The confirmation in favour of . The respondents' side took place in - 1960. The petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court in 1977 which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. ' It has been noticed that the respondents side had taken possession of at least a part of the disputed property in 1963. This circumstance should have put the petitioners on notice.
4. Notwithstanding the same, they did not take any action till 1977. In the meanwhile change of ownership took place amongst the respondents' side. It was also held that the confirmation of the land to the respondents' side would tantamount to its partition. Accordingly both on ground of laches and also on aforestated ground, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
5. ' Learned counsel has tried to show that the change of possession took place only regarding one Khasra number while the other remained in possession of the petitioners; therefore, the reasoning of the High Court in this behalf is not correct.
6. Even if it he assumed for the sake of argument that the contention raised by the learned counsel is based on reality, the fact remains that the possession' having been transferred of a part of the land in 1963 the petitioners could have I made inquiries with reagrd to the interest of the respondents in the entire land in dispute. We agree with the High Court that it is not possible to accept that the petitioners were not aware of what had happened. In any case the petitioners, if so advised, can make use of the ruling of this Court in 'Muhammad Anwar v. Malik Fazal Ellahi' (1989 SCMR 1225) which is to the effect that when in case like the present one; the specific land is confirmed in favour of displaced persons it tantamounts to partition thereof. After hearing the learned counsel we find no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.