1. ' MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-Survey Nos. 23, 24 and 25 with a total area of 14.11 acres situate in Deh Patwar, Taluka Matli, District Hyderabad, are entered as garden. Out of the above garden land, respondent No, 1 and his brother's wife Mst. Jehan Ara Rama Begum were jointly allotted survery No, 23, measuring 3.30 acres against their claim for garden land. The contiguous Survey No, 25 was allotted to one Hassan Abbas and the third Survey No, namely, 24 was allotted to the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed an appeal claiming Survey Nos. 23 and 25 also in preference to respondent No, 1 and wife of his brother and Hassan Abbas. The appeal succeeded partially and the petitioner was allotted Survey No, 25 also and the allottment in favour of Hassan Abbas was cancelled. The petitioner filed a revision before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, claiming the allotment of Survey No, 23 also. In the meantime, Martial Law Regulation No, 84 came into force. In M. R. V. Issued by the Central Record Office in respect of the claim of respondent No, 1, the word 'garden' was omitted. Respondent No, 1 represented against this omission and requested for the necessary correction. The correction however, was not issued in time and the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L), by order dated 16-7-1962 also allotted Survey No, 23 to the petitioner, on the ground that M. R. V. Issued in respect of the claim of respondent No, 1 did not show that his claim was for garden land and further that Survey No, 23 was also a part of Survey Nos. 24 and 25 which already stood allotted to the petitioner.
2. ' An appeal filed by the respondent No, 1 against the above order was dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) on the ground that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) had made the impugned order with his prior approval. The respondents then applied for revision which was also dismissed. This was followed by Writ Petition No, 795 of 1962 by the respondents which was allowed on the ground that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) was not justified in cancelling the temporary allotment of Survey No, 23 in favour of the respondent on the ground that from the point of view of consolidation, the three survey numbers should be allotted to the petitioner. The case however, was remitted to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) to consider whether the corrected entry of Salim Bagh in M. R. V. Issued in the meantime in favour of respondent No 1 was genuine and if that be so, the temporary allotment of Survey No, 23 be restored and confirmed in his favour. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order of the learned Single Judge was disposed of on the limited ground that the remedy by way of further revision being available to respondent No, I, the learned Single Judge should not have assumed constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 which is exercisable only when "no other adequate remedy" is available. Accordingly, respondent No, 1 was obliged to file a revision before the Settlement Commissioner (L) which was dismissed. The learned Settlement Commissioner took the view that the petitioner had a preferential claim for Survey No, 23 over respondent No, I who had not been able to establish his claim for garden land.
3. ' Aggrieved by the above order, respondent No, 1 filed a fresh writ petition being No, 352 of t971. This was accepted by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 1-7-1974. Before the learned Single Judge, it was conceded that the respondent and his brother's wife had garden claim for 3.30 acres for which Survey No, 23 was initially allotted to them, though, their entitlement was later reduced to 1.46 acres which was equivalent to 155 P. I. Units. In the High Court, the genuineness of M. R. V. Issued in favour of the respondent was also questioned despite the affidavits filed by him pretesting its genuineness. On behalf of the respondent, it was also submitted that with the allotment of Survey Nos. 24 and 25, the petitioner's claim for garden land stood fully satisfied and that he was claiming transfer of Survey No, 23 in lieu of his claim for agricultural land. Since a number of disputed questions of fact were canvassed before the learned Single Judge, he vide order dated 1-7-1974, accepted the writ petition and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision alter inquiring into the disputed questions of fact. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this order of the learned Single Judge.
4. In support of this petition, the petitioner's learned counsel submitted that the respondent's revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner was barred by limitation and that being so, the writ petition should have been dismissed on that short ground. It is however, not controverted that the factual position on the basis of which the rival claims of the petitioner and the respondent for the garden land are to be determined was in a nebulous state and therefore the impugned order remanding to the Settlement Commissioner the case for a proper enquiry on facts was perfectly just and proper. Once the parties appear before the Settlement Commissioner, the whole case will reopen before him and the petitioner herein will be at liberty to take any objection including that relating to limitation against the revision by the petitioner filed prior to moving the Writ Petition No, 352 of 1974, by respondent No, 1.
5. ' With the above observation, the petition is dismissed.