In this case petitioner No.l has died and his legal heirs have been brought on the record. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner represents the legal heirs of petitioner No.l and also petitioners Nos.2 and 3 in their own rights.
2. In this petition an order dated 26-6-1975 is assailed by which the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) held the respondent to be entitled to the extent of 134 Units as to the disputed land. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that this order of Settlement authority is, on the face of it, illegal and in contravention of the order of this Court passed on 21-10-1965 in Writ Petition No. 2144-8 of 1962.
3. It is not necessary to go into the history of this case. The parties have been litigating for the allotment of the land and finally the respondent No.l Muhammad Idrees filed Writ Petition No.2144-R of 1962 which was accepted and the case was remitted to the A.R.C. for fresh decision. While deciding the case learned Judge referred to certain observations made by the Settlement authority which are as under:-- "The learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner in his order confined himself to the question of reservation of the area in favour of the petitioner by the first order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 3rd of September 1955. He entirely ignored the facts that as sitting allottee the petitioner was entitled to the advantage given to him by paragraph 7 of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. He, therefore, directed that Idrees',s own claim should be satisfied out of Killas Nos. 7 and 15 of Square No.50 and Killas Nos.6, 13 and 14 of Square No.55 but confined his claim to 86 Units for which his claim had been verified at the time of reservation, while in fact that petitioner's entitlement is of 114 Units."
After recording the respective contentions of the parties, as noted above, the case was remitted to Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner for fresh decision. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal holding respondent No.l to be entitled to 134 Units.
4. Learned counsel vehemently argues that there is a positive finding by this Court in Writ Petition No.2144-R of 1962 that respondent No.l is entitled to 114 Units and not 134 Units as determined by Additional Deputy Commissioner and in this way the impugned order is not only illegal but amounts to violation of the order dated 21-10-1965 passed by this Court. With the assistance of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, I have gone through the order of this Court passed in aforementioned writ petition and find that there is no positive finding that respondent No.l shall be given land to the extent of 114 Units. In fact, the learned Court was only referring to certain observations of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and finally the case was remanded which culminated into the order dated 266-1975 entitling respondent No.l to have 134 Units. Learned counsel for respondent No.l states that the petitioner has been allotted squares of land in this village and allotment of 20 Units would not matter. This argument has no force whatsoever and I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that entitlement of the parties have to be determined according to their respective claims. However, I do not find any legal mistake in the order dated 26-6-1975 by which the respondent No.l had been held to be entitled to 134 Units.
5. In this writ petition an order was passed on 4-11-1975 suspending the operation of the impugned order subject to notice. Thereafter learned counsel for the parties appeared on 24-6-1976 and following order was passed by this Court: "I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The interim order is modified to the extentthat operation of the impugned order would remain suspended barring the entitlement of the respondents which comes to 134 P.I. Units:"
This also goes to show that parties were in agreement that respondent No.l should be given 134 Units and not 114 Units.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that respondent is not entitled to mortgagee rights. I cannot hold this inquiry nor determine the entitlement of the parties. The short point in this case is whether respondent No.l was entitled to 134 Units or 114 Units which has been decided above.
7. In view of above there is no merit in this writ petition which is I dismissed with no order as to costs.