' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.- This appeal through the leave of the Court has arisen out of the following facts:--
2. The appellants' predecessor-in-interest Muhammad Sharif was a claimant displaced person. His entitlement in terms of produce value was found 653 units. Out of this, he obtained allotment to the extent of 532 P.I. Units. He was left with 121 P.I. Units awaiting satisfaction. According to the appellants, Muhammad Shard's remaining entitlement was met with a tentative allotment of land measuring 191 kanals 7 marlas on quasi permanent basis and this area was incorporated in R.L.II at Khata No,190. On 24-7-1964 proposals were drawn in favour of the respondents about the same land. The respondents filed three appeals challenging the orders dated 29-7-1963 and 27-6-1964 about the allotment of land made in favour of Muhammad Sharif. Their case was that they being prior sitting allottees of the village had preferential rights to the allotment of the disputed land.
These appeals were allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who sct aside the orders dated 29-7-1963 and 27-6-1964. The view taken was that the order of confirmation in favour of late Muhammad Sharif was forged and had been predated. He, therefore, ordered allotment of the disputed land to the respondents. Muhammad Sharif challenged this order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in revision before the Settlement Commissioner (Land) who by means of order dated 12-6-1970 affirmed the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner with regard to orders dated 29-7-1963 and 27-6-1964. However, he directed as follows:-- "I understand from the Patwari that the petitioner has also some unsatisfied units and his claim vis- a-vis the claim of the respondents shall also, therefore, have to be considered. There may be other claimants in this village whose claims have not yet been fully satisfied. All such claims should be taken into consideration and allotment made according to the priorities laid down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner."
3. The appellants challenged this order in a Constitution Petition in the Lahore High Court. The same was dismissed on 29-9-1986. The appellants then approached this Court but Leave to Appeal was refused on 22-2-1981. The Notified Officer out of the disputed land ordered allotment of land to the extent of 130 P.T. Units. The respondents 1 to 12 challenged the order through a Constitution Petition in the Lahore High Court. The same was allowed on 29-9-1986 and the case was once again remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue, for its entrustment to Notified Officer, for a decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment,
4. The learned High Court after taking into consideration all the previous orders accepted the Constitution Petition filed by the respondents and in the concluding part of the judgment it has been recorded as hereunder:-- "Indeed the record fully demonstrates that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had recorded a definite finding that allotment against Khata No,190 was procured by Muhammad Sharif by fraud.
This finding was not disturbed by the revisional authority and rather was upheld by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. It was, therefore, improper on the part of the Collector/Deputy Collector to regard Muhammad Sharif as possessed of a preferential right for allotment and further permitted retention of the land equivalent to 130 units in the said Khata at the cost of the petitioners, As regards the confirmation of the proposals made against Khatas Nos.177 and 182/176, these should have been confirmed provided the petitioners' claim against which the allotment was sought to be made, were not already adjusted elsewhere. The case of petitioners Nos.6 to 12 also seems to have been dealt with in a perfunctory manner and thus requires re-examination by the Authorities below, in the light of copy of R.L.II Register."
5. Here we may also refer to the orders of this Court dated 22-2-1981 where leave was refused to the appellants and it was observed that:-- "Learned counsel attempted to challenge the concurrent findings of fraud, but as the question was one of fact which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities, we agree with the view of the High Court that it could not have interfered with this concurrent finding in its limited Constitutional jurisdiction and we hold .That the remedy of a writ petition was not available to Muhammad Sharif. Therefore, the writ petition was rightly dismissed and it is not a fit case for the grant of special leave. This petition is, therefore, dismissed."
6. It may also be pointed out that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 20-12-1969 has observed that the land in dispute was proposed in the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents but there was no reason as to why the same was not confirmed in their names. The graveyard, ponds, roads etc. Were wrongly proposed in the names of the appellants. The order dated 29-7-1969 was a forged order because it did not bear the signature of the then Settlement Commissioner (Land). The very foundation of proposal made in favour of the appellants was tainted with fraud. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner was affirmed by the Settlement Commissioner and these findings of fact were not disturbed either by the High Court or by this Court. It is, therefore, clear that the appellants had not sought the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court with clean breast. There are concurrent findings of fact by all the Courts. No question of law is involved in this appeal. This appeal has no force. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.