1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Mst. Noor Fatima and others, appellants herein, through leave to the Court, have called in question the order dated 1-11-1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby their Writ Petition No,416/R of 1981 challenging the allotment of the suit land in the name of Hakim Ali dated 28-4-1964, was dismissed. The leave granting order is as follows:-- "Leave to appeal is granted to examine, inter alia, whether the judgment of the High Court does not proceed on an incorrect assumption of fact that Hakim Ali was previous allottee (28-4-1964) against 11-5-1964 of petitioner. In fact on 28-4-1964 only proposal was made in his name which proposal was made in favour of petitioner on 11-3-1964 and confirmed on 11-5-1964."
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Mst. Noor Fatima is a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir and the suit land situated in Maju Chak was proposed in her name on 23-3-1964, but before it could be confirmed, the same was allotted in the name of Hakim Ali predecessor-in- interest of respondents 1 to 4, who too, was a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir vide order dated 28-4-1964. It appears that the proposal in the name of Mst. Noor Fatima, appellant No,1, was also confirmed on 11-5-1964 after the confirmation in the name of Hakim Ali. The appellant, on coming to know of it, applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for revival of allotment in her favour which was inquired into and on the suggestion of the lower subordinates that the allotment in the name of Hakim All was prior in time than that of the appellant, it was ordered that other land may be proposed in the name of the appellant. Henceforth the appellant did not pursue her remedy before any higher forum and after about 17 years she filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging the allotment of Hakim Ali as being illegal and without lawful authority and also on the cancellation thereof by the Settlement Authorities on Mukhbari application, the subsequent orders of the Settlement Officers allotting the same to different persons including the respondents which has been dismissed through the impugned order mainly on the ground of laches.
3. ' We have heard Mr. S. Lqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate, for the appellants; Mr. S. M. Murad, Advocate, for respondent 1; Mr. Maqbool Sadiq, Advocate, for respondents 14 to 17; and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the suit land was proposed in the name of the appellant earlier than its allotment in the name of Hakim Ali and, as such, the appellant had preference over Hakim Ali; that the allotment order in favour of Hakim Ali appears to be forged and fictitious and on its cancellation by the concerned officers on the ground of his claim having been found bogus, the confirmation order in the name of the appellant automatically stood revived and the land could neither be allotted to Mukhbars nor to Nazir and others, respondents, in lieu of their verified claim; that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings of Mukhbari application, the cancellation proceedings, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 10-9-1977, the writ petition filed by Nazir and others whereby the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was set aside and the order of allotment in favour of Nazir and others, respondents, became valid, and consequently, all these proceedings are not binding on her rights as her allotment was never cancelled nor any opportunity given.To her to plead her cause. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the proposal in the name of the appellant was for Guzara only but before it could be confirmed the land stood allotted to Hakim Ali and the subsequent confirmation in her favour was ineffective. She approached the Settlement Officer but her prayer was declined through a regular order which was never challenged before the higher forums, and invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when much of the water had flown under the bridge and the High Court justly declined the relief to the appellant.
5. ' The copy of the allotment order in the name of Hakim All placed on the record apparently appears to be unclear but the date of the order viz., 28-4-1964 cannot be doubted because the same finds mention in the report submitted by the staff on the application of the appellant as well as the subsequent order of the Settlement Authorities including that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 10-9-1977 that the allotment was made in favour of Hakim Ali on the said date. This allotment too, was subsequently cancelled on 2-3-1968 as is evident from the order dated 10-9-1977 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The land had been allotted to Nazir Ahmed and others on 7-8-1967 which was declared as invalid vide order dated 10-9-1977 but the High Court, on the writ petition of the aggrieved persons, maintained the allotment in favour of Nazir Ahmed and others in lieu of their verified claim. The plea of the lenared counsel for the appellant that all these proceedings are not binding on the appellant has no force because there was no valid allotment of the suit land in the name of the appellant and her silence for such a long time has legally estopped her to question the subsequent allotment in favour of Nazir Ahmed and others.
6. ' We do not find any legal error in the discretion exercised by the learned High Court and, resultantly, dismiss the instant appeal with no order as to costs.