' Petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition assailing the orders dated 29-8-1972 and 24-10- 1973 passed respectively by the Additional Commissioner (Lands) and Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore whereby the land measuring 3 Kanals 9 Marlas comprising in Khasra No, 937 at Mauza Khokhar, Tehsil and District Lahore, was cancelled from the name of Sh. Zafar Hussain, their predecessor-in-interest.
2. Facts in brief for disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the land in dispute measuring 3 Kanals 9 Marlas was allotted and confirmed to one Sh. Zafar Hussain on 2-6-1971 vide Khata No, 18 of RL-II. On his death it was mutated in favour of his legal heirs who subsequently sold the disputed land to Muhammad Yasin and Khaliq Hassan. The latter further sold his share to Muhammad Iqbal.
Subsequently the petitioners purchased this total piece of land measuring 3 Kanals 9 Marlas from aforesaid Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Iqbal Khan. The mutation was accordingly sanctioned in their favour. This very land had already been allotted to respondent No,1 Malik Makhdoom Ahmad on 24-12-1969 at Khata No,14 of RL-II. He made an application claiming to be a senior allottee having preference over Sh. Zafar Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who was allotted this land subsequently. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) after attending all legal formalities proceeded ex parte against Sh. Zafar Hussain and ultimately came to the conclusion through his order dated 29-8-1972 that the land was not available in Khasra No, 937 at the time when it was allotted to Sh. Zafar Hussain on 2-6-1971 at Khata No, 18 of RL-II. Accordingly he cancelled the same. The petitioners who claimed to be bona fide purchasers from the successors-in-interest of Sh. Zafar Hussain filed an appeal against the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner on 17-2-1973. The Settlement Commissioner (Lands)
Lahore, vide order dated 24-10-1973 dismissed the appeal. Hence this Constitutional petition.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their predecessor-in-interest Sh. Zafar Hussain was senior to Munshi Khan respondent No,2 who was allotted land measuring 4 Kanals on 7-7-1971 out of said Khasra number vide Khata No, 12 of RL-II. On this basis it is argued that the land of Munshi Khan should have been cancelled instead of the petitioners' predecessor's land. Learned counsel Sh. Muhammad Hanif appearing on behalf of the Settlement Department has stated that said Munshi Khan was never made party before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore Division, as such no exception, according to him, can be taken to the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and persued the documents appended with this writ petition.
Admittedly, the petitioners had not made Munshi Khan respondent as party before the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore. There is yet another reason for not interfering at this stage as it is reflected from the record that the proposal for allotment of land to Munshi Khan respondent was made on 24-3-1971 i,e, much before the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Sh. Zafar Hussain came into picture. In view of the law laid down in PLD 1978 Lahore 252 (Inayat Bibi and others v.
Assistant Settlement Commissioner etc.) it cannot be said that the proposal made earlier in time to Munshi Khan respondent would not be effective in law. This case came up for consideration in a case reported in PLD 1991 Lahore 459 (Muhammad Ashraf Khan and others v. A.C.II, Sialkot and others) and a Division Bench of this Court held as under:-- "It is well-settled that even if a proposal to transfer the land has been made in favour of a person, the land covered by that proposal being not available cannot be transferred to any one else till such time the proposal is taken out of the field. The allotment in favour of the appellants in the presence of the proposal, which is asserted to be an allotment by the respondent, is obviously not sustainable and that being so, the appellant would have no locus standi to question the right of respondent No, 5 to retain the land in pursuance of para. 7 of Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme and the consequent instructions issued thereunder. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in "Inayat Bibi etc. v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner reported as PLD 1978 Lah.
252."
' In this background, keeping all the aforestated features of the case into consideration, I am not presuaded to interfere in these orders in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction at this belated stage. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.