1. ' MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepting the writ petition filed by Mirza Muhammad Beg, since deceased, predecessor-in- interest of respondents 2 to 9 herein.
2. ' The dispute relates to the allotment of certain land in village Man Singhwala, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore, which was allotted and confirmed to Mst. Kamli (petitioner herein) as daughter and Muslim Law heir of one Phool Khan, who was stated to have abandoned land in Gurgaon District. It appears that Mirza Muhammad Beg claimed the allotment of the same land, on the allegation, that Mst.
3. Kamli had succeeded in getting the land allotted to her on the basis of a bogus claim and that the allotment had been cancelled from her name on that account. There is also a note to that effect in Khata No, 154 of R. L. II relating to entitlement of Phool Khan. This was, however, stoutly contested by Mst. Kamli, who protested the genuineness of her claim, and her allotment was intact.
4. ' During the proceedings that followed, the matter was taken in appeal by Mst. Kamli, before D. R. C.
5. (L), Kasur, who, vide order dated 12-7-1963 accepted her appeal holding that no order has been produced by Mirza Muhammad Beg to show that the claim of Mst. Kamli was bogus and therefore, Mirza Muhammad Beg was entitled to the land in her khata, as an informer. Accordingly, the land was restored to Mst. Kamli.
6. ' A revision filed by Mirza Muhammad Beg against the above order was dismissed on 17-3-1964 by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) Lahore, who concurred with the view taken by the D.
7. R. C. In the appeal filed by Mst. Kamli, but who nevertheless concluded his order by the following observation, namely :- "However, if at any stage fard-e-haqiat of the respondent (Mst. Kamli) is cancelled or her claim is found to be bogus, then the case of the petitioner (Mirza Muhammad Beg) may be considered for the allotment of the land in dispute."
8. ' A further revision by Mirza Muhammad Beg before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore, was also dismissed vide order dated 23-12-1964. The learned Settlement Commissioner also observed that if the fard-e-haqiat in favour of Mst. Kamli has been cancelled, then the proper remedy open to Mirza Muhammad Beg is to apply to the appropriate Settlement Authority for the implementation of the above direction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
9. ' It appears that basing himself upon the above observations of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, and certain earlier proceedings conducted by the Central Record Room about the genuineness of the claim of Mst. Kamli, as heir of her father Phool Khan, which tended to show that the latter was still alive in India, Mirza Muhammad Beg applied for the cancellation of the khata from the name of Mst.
10. Kamli and allotment of the land in his favour. While the matter was still before the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mst. Kamli filed a revision which was heard by another Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore, who vide order dated 23-12- 1967 accepted the same on the ground, that Mirza Muhammad Beg, having already failed in his two successive revisions before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, cannot repaginate the same matter and, therefore, proceedings initiated before the lower authorities for the cancellation of khatas in the name of Mst. Kamli were quashed.
11. ' Mirza Muhammad Beg died in the meantime and his heirs, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore dated 23-12-1967, moved Writ Petition No, 164-R of 1968, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge on the ground that the impugned order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) in the second round of litigation proceeded on "assumption" which was "erroneous". According to the learned Single Judge, the whole basis of the claim of writ petitioner was that the khata of Mst. Kamli has been cancelled and that therefore, in implementation of the directions contained in the two provisional orders of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) and Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), in the first round of litigation, then pending claim be satisfied out of the cancelled allotment of Mst. Kamli. The learned Single Judge observed that these proceedings are of different nature and, therefore, cannot be quashed because of any observation in the first round of! Litigation between the parties.
12. It is urged on behalf of Mst. Kamli before us that her case has been gravely prejudiced by the observation of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's fard-e-haqiat has been cancelled being founded on a bogu claim. It is contended vehemently that the petitioners entitlement is still intact and has not been cancelled as was claimed by the respondents herein, in the High Court.
13. ' We consider that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner herein by the order so the learned Single Judge, for the directions in the revisional order of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) and the Settlement Commissioner can be implemented in favour of the respondents only if it is proved that the fard-e-haqiai of the petitioner has been cancelled. It will be a subject-matter of enquiry by the competent authority before making any order in favour of the respondents herein as to whether the allotment in favour of the petitioner has in fact been cancelled. If it turns out to be, that the allotment has not been cancelled, as is alleged by the respondents, then they will not benefit by the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) or as the case may be the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, both of which are conditional, the inseparable condition being that the fard-e-haqiat has been cancelled.
14. ' It is hardly a case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.