1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are claimant displaced persons.
2. The dispute is over the allotment of some lands in square No. 18 Chak No. 23/4-L, District Sahiwal to respondent No. 2 Jamal Din and its confirmation by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 16th December 1961.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) from the order dated the 16th December 1961, and the appeal was allowed on the 21st June 1963, and the land was confirmed to the petitioner. It was found that the respondent was not a sitting allottee of the estate in the said Chak.
4. Respondent No. 2 went up in revision before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and it was accepted on the 28th of January 1965: It was held that the petitioner was not a sitting allottee in the Chak.
5. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Settlement Commis--sioner. The Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 18th April 1965, accepted the revision and set aside the impugned order dated the 28th of January 1965 on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had already lost his powers of revision as a result of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Amendment Ordinance, 1964, which came into effect on the 27th December 1964, and consequently his order dated the 28th January 1965, was without jurisdiction. The aggrieved party was advised to seek remedy in a competent Court.
6. The respondent filed a review petition and it was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner on the 29th of September 1965.
7. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court and it was dismissed on the 22nd December 1972.
8. It has been contended before us that the review before the Settlement Commissioner was not competent. It does not appear that this contention 4 was raised before the High Court and we have, therefore, not permitted the petitioner to raise this point for the first time before us.
9. The petitioner has next challenged the validity of the finding of the High Court that she was not a sitting allottee. The High Court has given cogent reasons in support of the finding, and we see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact.
10. The petitioner has further sought to advance his contention on the basis of Parchi Taqsim. This point again was not taken before the High Court and we, therefore, refuse to consider the Parchi.
11. The petition is dismissed.
12. Civil Petition No. 136 relates to the same Chak but a different square viz. Square No. 17.
13. It has been contended that the petitioner's unit had been transferred to the Chak before the respondent's units were transferred. This contentiondoes not appear to have been raised before the High Court and we, therefore do not permit it to be raised for the first time here.
14. The petition is dismissed.