' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the same judgment of the High Court whereby the Constitution petition of Saeed Ahmad Mughal, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in CP No, 855-L of 1992, was partly allowed.
2. The dispute among the parties relates to a portion of land situate in the revenue estate of Jia Musa of Tehsil Lahore. It was formerly evacuee property and was sold on 24-5-1961 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, also exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, to Muhammad Hussain Comrade for the purpose of shifting his textile mills from a congested area of Lahore City. The sale had the prior approval of the Central Government.
3. The petitioners in CP No, 713-L of 1992 applied for the transfer of some portions of land sold to Muhammad Hussain Comrade under Scheme No, VIII in 1970 and obtained favourable orders.
Muhammad Hussain Comrade challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities in this regard in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that as the property had already been sold it was no longer available for disposal under Scheme No, VIII. The petitioners in CP No, 713-L/1992 seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of these petitions it is contended that in an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No, 466/R of 1981) the area cited by the petitioners had, been declared as urban building site and, therefore, it could not have been transferred to Muhammad Hussain Comrade. It is difficult to accept this contention. The decision in Writ Petition No, 466/R of 1981 was not inter-parties; it is, therefore, irrelevant so far as the petitioners are concerned. Apart I A from that, before selling the land to Muhammad Hussain Comrade the Chief Settlement Commissioner had obtained the approval of the Central Government. There is little doubt that he was competent to sell land forming part of the compensation pool the land both under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act (see section 10(2)) and under the e Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (see section 12).
As the land had already been sold by the Central Government to Muhammad Hussain Comrade no part of it could subsequently be transferred by the Settlement Authorities to the petitioners in Scheme No, VIII.
5. A part of the land had also been transferred by the Settlement Authorities to Malik Ghulam Mustafa and Malik Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Muhammad Hussain Comrade had earlier filed a writ petition to challenge the transfers made to C them. The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration of the said petition the petitioners in CP No, 855-L/1992 have filed another writ petition. There is no explanation why the earlier writ petition was not pursued. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in not granting any relief in the second writ petition. Thus, no case for interference by this Court has been made out.
6. For the reasons stated above both petitions are dismissed.