1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 22-7-1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional Petition, arising out of a land settlement case, filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was allowed.
2. ' The relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent's father having been allotted the land in dispute on temporary basis on 30-5-1951, they remained in its possession throughout in their own right till the filing of the writ petition in 1975. In the meanwhile, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining an allotment of the same land on 15-6-1961 purportedly on permanent basis without any knowledge or notice to the respondents. However, despite this allotment the petitioner did not try to get possession from the respondents nor asked for the landlord's share (Batai) till 1974 when a demand was made in that behalf. The respondents filed a land settlement revision, but the same failed as in the meanwhile the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was repealed. They then moved the writ petition, which having met success, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a temporary allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 1st May, of 1951, was ignored by the High Court. He has also contended that the petitioner being prior temporary allottee, it was not necessary to serve the respondents with notice, when the petitioner's temporary allotment was confirmed in 1961. He has, further contended that the question of possession, though in the circumstances of this case heavily weighted with the learned Single Judge in the High Court, was not at all relevant in law.
4. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the question of possession was not relevant. Even if the petitioner obtained the temporary allotment on 1st of May, 1951, and on paper got it confirmed in 1961, the same was not acted upon. As to why it was not acted upon and the petitioner did not bother to take possession for nearly 25 years nor did he ask for the Batai from the respondents, who remained in possession, has not been explained.
5. ' The allotment of 1st May, 1951, even if to be treated as genuine without possession, it seems, lost all its value when the Department not only made a fresh allotment in favour of the respondents but also either acknowledged their possession or transferred the same to them. The petitioner did not object to the allotment of 30-5-1951 for nearly 24 years. Learned counsel is unable to explain this aspect of the conduct of the petitioner. We cannot presume that it was without any reason, which it appears, if the petitioner would have disclosed, he might have otherwise lost the case. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed.