1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Sufi Wassan Muhammad petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3 March, 1981.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that a `D' type quarter belonging to the Provincial Government was allotted to one Karim Khan father of respondents Nos.6 and 7. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 28 June, 1961 Karim Khan made an agreement with the petitioner and after receiving Rs.1,000 handed over the possession of the said quarter to the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner paid him seven instalments and also incurred expenditure of about Rs.5,000 on the said quarter. The allotment of the quarter in favour of Karim Khan was cancelled on 14 April, 1963 but it was reallotted in favour of Karim Khan on 18 May, 1963. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a suit challenging the notice and his dispossession with a declaration that he was in occupation of the quarter in his own right, was entitled to its allotment by virtue of the policy letters, dated 10 November, 1964 and 21 July, 1965 and that he should be granted perpetual injunction restraining the authorities from allotting the quarter to anyone else and thus disturbing the petitioner's possession. The trial Court decreed his suit but on appeal by the Provincial Government the District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of civil revision in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner before us conceded that the property in dispute is a 'D' type quarter belonging to the Government. It is also evident that if it had been allotted to Karim Khan who had hilt.-,elf yet not become the owner of the said quarter he was not authorised to pass on any title pertaining the same to the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner's occupation was illegal and he was in wrongful possession as it was unauthorised. Learned counsel then attempted to argue that under the policy letters of the Government (referred to above) the allotment of such quarter could he regularised in favour of unauthorised occupant, if the petitioner was to the considered as such. It was submitted that in various cases allotments had been regularised in similar circumstances.
4. We have considered this aspect of the case. The present position is that the petitioner is not in possession of the said quarter and that for the past so many years someone else is occupying the same. Besides that these arguments had been raised before the Courts below as well as before the learned Judge of the High Court who had held that the order refusing the petitioner to be considered for allotment was not unjustified as he was a trespasser and was not in similar occupation of the quarter as those in whose favour the regularisation was made.
5. ' In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.