1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-One Fazal Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 8 and 9, migrated from East Punjab and was allotted land equivalent to 490 units measuring 67 kanals 3 marlas in Chak No. 72/R. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, on temporary basis. On the 1st August 1960, the petitioner moved an application before the Enforcement Staff to the effect that Fazal lain has been allotted land in excess of his entitlement. No effective step was taken on this application.
2. The petitioner moved another application on the 30th January 1962, and the same was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur. On the 15th June 1963, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner examined the entire matter. He came to the conclusion that the land held by the predecessor-in---interest of respondents Nos. 8 and 9, be cancelled. The matter was taken in appeal and the same was dismissed. A revision petition was filed and it was accepted on the 22nd November 1966, when the matter was remanded for being decided afresh. On remand. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, examined the entire question. He came to the conclusion that no fraud has been committed in taking the land in excess of the entitlement and that as permanent transfer had been effected under section 16 of the Land Settlement Act, the Settlement authorities were not competent to cancel the excess land. The petitioner challaned this order in Writ Petition No. 193/R of 1970, which was dismissed by the High Court on the 2nd March 1973. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Mr. M. S. Baqir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that merely because the petitioner was an informer, his petition could not be held to be incompetent. This contention has no force. As pointed out by the High Court, it was held in the cases of Abida Khatoon v. Ghulam Shabbir (PLD 1964 SC 793), Muhammad Ismail v. Jaferi Begum (1969 SCMR 34) and Allah Ditta v. Raja Saeed Akhtar (1972 Law Notes 118.), that an informer has no locus stand to challenge the validity of an order of the Settlement authorities. This being the position, the High Court was perfectly justified in non-suiting the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.