' This Constitutional petition is directed against the action of Settlement authorities by which the disputed land has been allotted to respondents-informers in pursuance of the order, dated 9-6- 1991 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,736 of 1988.
2. Briefly stated, Additional Settlement Commissioner with powers of, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala vide his order dated 17-9-1978 cancelled the disputed land from the name of original allottee under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The vendees filed Writ Petition No,1038 of 1978 which was dismissed on 28-10-1985 by this Court holding that the cancellation was legally correct but at the same time it was observed that the persons in occupation of the land in question may apply to learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for sale in their favour in accordance with law. Thereafter the informers Taj Din etc. Filed Civil Appeal No,736 of 1988 which was accepted by order dated 9-6-1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that first right is vested with the informers under section 14(1-A) of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and in this view of the matter, order of this Court was recalled.
3. It appears that by order dated 20-9-1993 disputed land has been allotted in favour of legal heirs of informers and this is so evident from a Robkar Annex: 'F' Page 65 of the file. The petitioner has challenged this action of Settlement Authorities allotting the land in favour of legal heirs of informers.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners raised the plea that land allotted in favour of informers is bogus as there is no order, dated 20-9-1993 which has been referred to in the impugned Robkar dated 20-5-1993. It is emphasized that Robkar cannot be issued on 20-5-1993 referring to the allotment order dated 20-9-1993. It is further submitted that petitioners are the vendees and they filed application before the Settlement authorities that claim of informers had already been settled and, therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court is inapplicable. This application is dated 9-9-1993 at page 61 of the file.
5. There are other applications of petitioners/vendees that proceedings regarding the allotment of land may be stayed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and do not find any substance in his contentions.
The case was finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9-6-1991 and present petitioners, according to learned counsel, were respondents Nos. 12 and 13. If there was no claim of informers, the point could have been raised at that time. In any case the petitioners started filing applications against informers in July, 1993. Anyhow, there is no direct evidence available on the record to substantiate the contention of petitioners that informers had already obtained the land as against their claims. As to the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel as to the dates stated above, one of the date is apparently incorrect. However, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment made in favour of the informers. This writ petition has therefore no merit and is dismissed in limine.
7. The claim of the informers has already been adjusted and if there is any surplus land the case of the petitioner may be considered for sale of that in accordance with law. Disposed of.