1. S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J: --These are two petitions filed by the petitioners against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29-5-1989, whereby the Writ Petition No.666-R of 1978 of the respondents was allowed.
2. The facts of the case in brief are stated to be that Zulfiqar Ali Shah a refugee respondent No.6 in both the petitions herein, obtained 9260 P.I.Us. Of land against his A.Q.P.R. No .13374/25, in villages Tehi, Akwal, Talagang West and East, Kufri, Malakwal, Dudial in Tehsil Attock and Talagang. After the issuance of Martial Law Regulation No.91, his claim was cancelled and his entitlement was made on the basis of new allotment on which he had to surrender the excess land of 1529 P.I.Us. An option was given to him either to purchase toe excess land or to surrender the same upto 28-2-1962 and thereafter the sitting tenants were to get the remaining surrendered land upto 3-4-1962. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, surrendered 639 P.I.Us. Of land in village Tehi but did not deposit the price of the excess land, surrendered by him, therefore, the allotment of the so surrendered land by him in the said village and other villages were cancelled vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) dated 5-8-1966. On the cancellation of the above land 1317 P.I.Us. Were allotted to Allah Rakha, Noor Muhammad etc., the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent Nos.3 to 13.
3. Zulfiqar Ali Shah being aggrieved with the order of cancellation dated 5-8-1966, filed appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but it was filed for want of jurisdiction and consequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was also returned to him to exhaust the legal remedy available to him before 'the Additional Settlement Commission and accordingly a revision petition was filed before him against the order of cancellation, who vide his order dated 13-12-1973 remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law. Zulfiqar Ali Shah on the statements dated 10-6-1974 and 15-6-1974, withdrew his claim to purchase the surrendered land which was allotted to respondents Nos.3 to 13.
4. The Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner by his fresh order retained the allotment of agriculture land to the extent of 639 P.1, Us. In favour of Allah Rakha and others. Allah Rakha sold a portion of his land to Muhammad Bashir vide mutation dated 1-8-1974 and thereafter Muhammad Bashir sold the same land to Ajab Khan. Subsequently, Ajab Khan gifted the said land to his sons Meher Muhammad and Saleh Muhammad, petitioners herein, vice registered deed dated 23-9-1979. Capt. (Retd.) Fazal Din and Muhammad Nazir, petitioners in civil petition No.416 of 1989 also purchased the land but they have not been made a party in the litigations before the lower forums.
5. Ahmed Khan etc., the sitting tenants filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed and the case was remitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The learned Judge while allowing the petition, held, that the surrendered land did not revert to the compensation pool but stood vested in the Provincial Government and under paragraph 5 of the Settlement Laws, the land shall be offered firstly, to the sitting tenants on the same terms as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said laws and in the following terms the order was passed:-- "I am, therefore, clear in my mind that the order of allotment in favour of Allah Rakha and-others in respect of surrendered land in Mauza Tehi is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is without lawful authority, it is declared as such. Accordingly the petition is accepted. The land is held to have been vested in the Provincial Government. Since the High Court in this jurisdiction is not required to substitute its opinion, therefore, the same is remitted to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Attock, who shall determine the entitlement of the petitioners Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Khan and Abdul Rehman in respect of land in Mauza Tehi. If he comes to the conclusion that the petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the sitting tenants, he shall offer the land to them in accordance with paragraph No.5 of the Scheme for disposal of land surrendered by displaced persons under paragraph No.8 of the Martial Law Regulation No.89."
6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel in support of these petitions, in the light of the finding of the High Court, we have come to the conclusion that no Case has been made out by the petitioners which can be considered for the grant of leave. As the approach of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the exercise of his writ jurisdiction to this cast and thereafter his arrival at a proper conclusion, is unexceptional, in which the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to pinpoint any flaw or miscarriage of justice, for further consideration of this Court.
7. Resultantly, both these petitions are dismissed with the observation that after the fulfilment of the entitlement of the sitting tenants, if some land is left, that may be given to the petitioners.