IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 19-8-1975 passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore whereby he dismissed the revision petition against the order of the Land Commissioner, Sargodha Division dated 22-3-1975, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 30-1-1974 passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang.
2.The gravamen of the case of the private parties stands resolved by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order in the following manner:-- "I have considered the arguments and have consulted the record. The main basis of the case of the petitioner is that the Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang, had allotted this land to him by his order dated 5-8-1970. I have seen that order. No basis for the allotment of this land has been given in that order. On the other hand in his order dated 4-8-1971 the Deputy Land Commissioner has given the basis on which the land was allotted to the respondents. The record, therefore, does not support the case of the petitioner that a proper inquiry was held and that allotment to the petitioner was made on the basis of facts actually prevailing on the ground. Similarly the Khasra Girdawari shows that during the crucial harvests of 1958-59 the land in dispute was under cultivating possession of Jalla and Wallia and was not cultivated by Khadim Hussain as stated by the counsel for the petitioner. The allotment of land comprising Khasra Nos. 125, 126, 133, 134, 135, 3202/146 and 147 to the respondents, therefore, was proper and legal. There is no evidence or document in support of the contention of the petitioner."
3. The only point argued by Mr. Asghar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents Nos. 4 to 10/predecessor-in-interest had already given up their claim in respect of the disputed Khasra before the subordinate Land Commission Authorities, therefore, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore, was not justified in allotting the disputed Khasras to the respondents particularly when the petitioner was the allottee in respect of those Khasras ever since 1962.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, we do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that at one stage of the proceedings the respondents had given up their claim to the disputed Khasra numbers but the matter was remanded by the learned Land Commissioeer on 19-8-1971 for decision afresh on merits. The Deputy Land Commissioner vide order dated 30-1-1974, after attending in detail to the respective claims of Bahadur Khan petitioner and Wallia and Jalla respondents/predecessor-in-interest came to the following conclusion:-- This order was upheld by the learned Land Commissioner, Sargodha, vide order dated 22-3-1975 which has not been shown to be contrary to the facts. The learned Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by both the deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner vide impugned order dated 19-8-1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the aforesaid orders are based on misreading A or are in disregard to any material fact. In any event, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner got the land according to his entitlement, therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned allotment of the respondents. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity to justify interference therein by this Court. Resultantly the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.