' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J--The dispute relates to an area measuring 217 Kanals 7 Marlas, situate in village Kasana, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot. It was proposed in favour of the repondents on 30-12-1965. Ignoring this, the land was proposed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Mauj Din on 20-6-1969 and was confirmed in his favour on 30-12-1969. The respondents' appeal was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) vide order dated 12-6-1971. Mauj Din's revision having been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner (L) on 30-8-1971 he filed a Writ Petition No, 843-R of 1971 which was allowed on 1-4-1975, and case remanded for decision of "all questions of law and fact which the parties may raise as well as the question of entitlement of the parties to this land in accordance with law."
2. The matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner who took the view that the principle of "first come and first served" as urged by the respondents was not applicable. He, therefore, upheld the allotment in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 16-2-1977. This order was challenged by the respondents through Writ Petition No, 527-R of 1977. It was observed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court "that it is not disputed that the claim of the petitioners who are displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir State, was pending in village Kasana since the year 1960". Further, they were the sitting allottees of the said village. The proposal of the land was drawn in their names on 30-12-1965. It was held that under Para. 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, it was obligatory on the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities to have confirmed the proposal and keeping that pending for foul) years and then to make another proposal in favour of the then respondents (present petitioners) was without lawful authority. The writ petition was accepted vide judgment dated 8-3-1986. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against this order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the respondents had got their claim transferred and obtained allotment elsewhere.
4. This was not urged before the High Court. Rather, the learned Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 16-2-1977 has said that he recorded the statement of the Head Clerk concerned who had stated that "according to his record no transfer orders of the units of the respondents to any other district were available in the Rehabilitation Branch. As such the point raised by the petitioners in this respect, stands rebutted." Therefore, it is not permissible to rake up a factual controversy which has been determined and buried long past. Vide the impugned order, the learned single Judge has allowed the respondents' writ petition on the ground that proposal for allotment in their favour was made much earlier and that required to be confirmed under the law. Without doing that, the land could not be behind their back proposed in favour of the predecesssor-in-interest of the petitioners. The learned single Judge was perfectly right and has enforced the law.
5. There is no force in this petition, and the same is, therefore, dismissed.