SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the appellants to examine the validity of the reallotment of the land earlier allotted to them in purported compliance of the revisional order passed by Mr. I.U. Khan Rehabilitation Commissioner on 23-11-1956 notwithstanding decisions of the superior Courts with regard to its validity and efficacy.
2. The appellants had received allotments of their verified claim in 1951 in Chak No, 180/E.B., Tehsil and District Vehari. They claimed to have remained continuously in possession of it. On 23-11-1956 Mr. I.U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner, passed a general revisional Order cancelling all the allotments made till then. He had discovered wide-spread illegalities in the allotments then made, had given notices to the allottees and had afforeded them collective hearing. While cancelling the earlier allotments, the Rehabilitation Commissioner also indicated guidelines for reallotments to be made and the principles to be followed for accomplishing it. This order of the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner was challenged by the two appellants and a few other similarly affected allottees by a Constitution Petition No, 605/R of 1958. It was allowed on 29-1-1960 and the revisional order was held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, preserving the allotments earlier made. A review application (No, 15 of 1960) filed by one Allah Bakhsh against this judgment failed on 10-7-1960 and so did his Petition for Leave to appeal (C.P.L.A. No, 149 of 1962). A part of the land allotted to the appellants was, however, proposed to respondents against the verified claim of Badra, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 4 and the proposal was confirmed on 21-11- 1958. Mst. Rehmo was also proposed a part of the allotment of the appellants on 25-9-1958 which was confirmed in her favour on 21-11-1958. Neither Badra nor Mst. Rehmo had been made parties by the appellants in their Constitution Petition No, 605/R of 1958 in which they had succeeded.
Consequent upon decision of this Court in Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1966 SC 483 the implementation of the order of Mr. I.U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner started in November, 1977. The Settlement Authorities re-affirmed the allotment of the respondents following the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No, 280/R of 1972 and Writ Petition No, 298/R of 1972 holding that only parties to the judgment were bound by it and not those who were not parties. The appellants, faced with this situation, instituted a Constitution Petition (Writ Petition No, 1149/R of 1977) which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned Order. The Constitution Petition filed by the appellants was directed against Badra and Abadan sons of Shera. An objection was taken that Badra was dead since 1952 and his heirs had not been impleaded. Similarly, Mst. Rehmo whose allotment was attacked had not been impleaded and she too was dead when the Writ Petition was instituted. The High Court in dealing with the various questions raised, observed as hereunder:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioners took up the position that application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased parties had already been moved. No such application could be traced on the file. However, after I had concluded the hearing, C.M. No, 6264/78 was put up before me. I rejected this application insofar as it concerned the bringing on record the heirs of respondent No,2. However, this was allowed insofar as it related to the heirs of petitioner Fazla who were ordered to be brought on record. The preliminary objection, therefore, partly succeeds. The writ petition stands dismissed qua the heirs of respondent No,2.
' Petitioners were allotted some land in the year 1951. After the order 01 Mr. I.U.Khan dated 23-11-1956, some area was proposed to respondent No,2 and 3 on 25-9-1958 and confirmed on 21-11-1958.
Similarly, some area was allotted to one Mst. Rahmoon who had in the meantime died. Her heirs were not impleaded as party in this writ petition. However, after the arguments had been concluded, an application was moved for impleading them as respondents. I disallowed this application by my order dated 6-6-1978."
3. Mr. A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that as pointed out in ground No,11, Abadan was the only successor-ininterest of Mst. Rehmo who had been impleaded as a party. About the death of Badra, the appellants remained in darkness and the moment the matter was brought to their notice, an application to that effect was filed. In the circumstances, particularly when the appellants were backed by a judgment in their favour in Constitution Petition No, 605/R of 1958, the defects or the omissions could not be considered fatal.
The learned counsel pointed out that the fruits of the litigations could not be denied to the appellants and their allotment stood protected in view of the judgment in Constitution Petition No, 605/R of 1958. In any case the allotment made to the appellants was at no stage formally cancelled nor they were heard while disturbing a part of allotment and allowing the respondents to get it allotted for themselves. The learned counsel wants to avail the decision of this Court in Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145) on the ground that the Rehabilitation Authority was a party in Writ Petition No, 605/R of 1958 and consequently was bound by the decision whereby the revisional order of Mr. I.U. Khan disturbing the allotment of the appellants was held to be against law and devoid of efficacy.
4. It is not denied that Badra was impleaded as a party and not his successors-in-interest in the High Court. It is also not denied that Badra had died long before the institution of the Constitution Petition. It is in the Supreme Court that the successor-in-interest of Badra have been impleaded as parties. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application and also B dismissing the claim against Badra, a dead person. The appellants being residentallottees of the same Chak where Badra resided and had allotments, could not plead complete ignorance of the fact of his death or the mistaken identity of the person.
5. As regards Mst. Rehmo, there is nothing on the record to show that Abadan is not her successor- in-interest. Her allotment being separate, the Constitution Petition suffered from no such defect if, while challenging the allotment of Mst. Rehmo, a dead person the sole successors-in-interest had been impleaded.
6. The statement of facts shows that Mst. Rehmo was proposed the disputed land on 25-9-1958 and confirmed on 21-11-1958. She had an interest in the property which was subject-matter of litigation in Constitution Petition No,605/R of 1958. Her absence from the proceedings, for which the appellants and their associates were to blame, would make the judgment not inter partes as between them and would not be binding on the strength of judgment given by this Court in Pir Bakhsh's case. The allotments made to Mst. Rehmo was immune from challenge and the judgment in Constitution Petition No, 605/R of 1958 could not be of avail to the appellants nothwithstanding the fact that thel Rehabilitation Authority was a party to the proceedings.
7. Abadan has been shown to be an allottee and was allotted land on 25-9-1958 and confirmed on 21-11-1958. What was done on 12-10-1976 was only a reiteration of the allotment made in 1958 and not a fresh allotment made in favour of Mst. Rehmo or Abadan. In the circumstances, in view of their being not parties to the earlier litigation and the subsequent litigation taking place after about 20 years of their allotment could not be of avail to the appellants. An effort has been made to explain the delay on the ground that as the appellants were recorded as allottees of the land and remained throughout in possession of it, they could not be aware of the paper work taking place adverse to their interest and it was only when they were threatened with dispossession that they instituted the proceedings. This may be a plausible explanation in ordinary litigation but in settlement matters where all rights are traceable to allotments and none to possession, such an explanation cannot successfully prevail. To the knowledge of the appellants, their own allotments had been disturbed by the revisional order of Mr. I.U.Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner. They had challenged successfully that order and in the meantime the land had been proposed and allotted to others. They could not remain oblivious of those allotments and they had to be challenged either independently or by impleading the respondents in the Constitution Petition that they filed and succeeded. Having not done that, the matters concluded by orders competently passed in 1958, could not be allowed to be reopened in the matter of settlement of refugees in 1978 or afterwards.
' There is no merit and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.