1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 17-11-1986, whereby their L.PA. No.274 of 1968 against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, passed in writ petition, filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The petitioners had filed `Mukhbari' application in the Court of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 2-10-1959 who after obtaining report cancelled the allotment from the name of Ismail but directed the cancelled land to be allotted to respondents Nos.3 and 4, ignoring the `Mukhbris' vide his order dated 11-8-1960. The petitioners filed revision petition before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) who vide his order, dated 10-1-1963 remanded the case to the D.C./C.S.C.
3. (Lands) Sahiwal, who after obtaining the report in the matter, vide his order dated 29-5-1968 observed that Sardar Khan predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.4 and 5 did not produce any evidence in support of his version while Muhammad Amin etc. Respondents gave the information to the enforcement staff on 10-10-1959. The learned D.C./C.S.C. (Lands) vide his above-mentioned order cancelled the allotment of Muhammad Ismail and held Muhammad Amin respondent No.3 as informant. The petitioners challenged this order through a Writ Petition No.762-R of 1968, in which the petitioners urged themselves to be the earlier informant than the respondents Nos.3 and 4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the writ petition dismissed the same in limine vide his order, dated 9-9-1986. Similarly, the Letters Patent Appeal of the petitioners also met the same fate, vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
5. The learned counsel in support of this petition urged that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in dismissing the writ petition as well the L.PA. Of the petitioners on the mere ground of locus standi in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1964 SC 793 which is not applicable to the petitioners' case and the same is overruled vide 1987 SCMR 1500.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the findings arrived at by the Courts below on a question of fact, we are satisfied that the similar views taken by the learned Judges of the High Court in writ petition as well as in the Letters Patent Appeal are unexceptional as the question of locus standi of the petitioners who were `Mukhbars' was decided on the basis of a law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in PLD 1964 SC 793 Mst. Abida Khatoon v.
7. Mian Ghulam Shabbir, Settlement Commissioner and others. That informer has no locus standi to file the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on the decision of this Court in Inayat Khan v. Haji Muhammad Suleman 1987 SCMR 1500 for the submission that by virtue of the provision of section 14(2)(1-A)(a) of Act XLVII of 1958 substituted by Act XXXVI of 1974, protection was granted to the valid allotment of resumed land to allottees thereof but the present case is totally distinguishable on facts, in that the petitioners were held not to be the informants by the Settlement Authorities and thus the finding of facts has throughout been upheld by the High Court.
8. For these reasons, there is no substance in the submissions advanced in support of this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.