AJMAL MIAN, J: --Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether the appellant being an informant had a statutory right for the transfer of the property which was cancelled from the name of Mst. Khudeja Khatoon or any part thereof, against the judgment dated 10-2-1985 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Review Application No. 20 of 1977 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1005/R of 1976.
2. The facts to be noted are that the appellant filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, alleging therein that one Mst. Khudeja Khatoon, on the basis of bogus verified claim, obtained the allotment of agricultural land measuring 84 kanals in 1967 and 1968. The appellant's aforesaid application was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19-2-1974, whereby he cancelled the allotment in favour of Mst. Khudeja Khatoon and ordered the A.C./D.C. Jhang to take necessary steps for resuming land and disposing it in accordance with law. The appellant filed aforesaid writ petition on the ground that as an informer he was not transferred the above land. The above petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 1-2-1977 on the ground that the appellant had been absent twice before and was also absent on the above date It was also observed that even on merits he had no case. Thereupon, the appellant filed aforesaid review application, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by the order under appeal. Leave to appeal was granted against the above order on the above question.
We have heard Hafiz SA. Rehman, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the appellant, and.Syed Zia Hussain Kazmi, learned A.S.C. For respondents Nos. 2 to 33. Before us, Hafiz SA. Rehman has candidly conceded that on 29-2-1974 when the allotment in favour of Mst. Khudeja Khato6n was cancelled upon the appellant's. Application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act, he was not entitled to the transfer of the land as he was not a claimant, which was the pre-condition for availing of the said right. However, his submission was that in view of proviso 1 to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the appellant was entitled to the transfer of the remaining land, after excluding 11 kanals and 18 marlas already transferred to respondents Nos. 2 to 33, as he had been in continuous possession as a tenant since 1949. In our view, the appellant is trying to set up a new case which was not C urged before the High Court and, therefore, we cannot examine the above question. The learned A.S.C. Appearing for the appellant, has not been able to point out any error of law in the High Court's order under appeal. The appeal has, therefore, no merits and it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. I However, it will be open to the appellant to approach the Settlement Department in accordance with law, if he has any alleged right.