1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Siddique and others, heirs of Fateh Muhammad, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 3-4-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No, 349-R/77 filed by Fateh Muhammad, their predecessor-in-interest, against the order dated 8-1-1976 of the Settlement Tehsildar, Sialkot, was dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Fateh Muhammad (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner') and Ajaz Din respondent, since dead, represented by Mst. Allah Rakhi and others, respondents herein, (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent-1) were real brothers and they got temporary allotment in their names in the village Pindi Panjoran, Tehsii and District, Sialkot as Jammu and Kashmir Displaced Persons. Against their claim Q.P.R. For 852 P.I. Units was issued in the name of Fateh Muhammad alone and he secured allotment of land equivalent to 296 P.I. Units including his temporary allotment. However, the temporary allotment of Ajaz Din remained intact of which he was in exclusive possession. After the allotment in favour of the petitioner in lieu of Q.P.R., consolidation operation took place in the village and he being satisfied that the area allotted to him was inferior in quality, he preferred appeal/revision petition to the higher hierarchy of Consolidation Officers and succeeded in getting modification in his allotment by the Additional Consolidation Commissioner vide order dated 15-4-1970. Respondent No, 1 on coming to know that his name had been omitted from the Q.P.R. Filed representation to the relevant Authorities and secured correction of Q.P.R. In which his name was also included as a claimant. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No, 1 mutually agreed that respondent No, 1 will try to secure separate allotment against his share of Q.P.R. As he was interested in retaining his temporary allotment exclusively xclusively to himself without allowing a share therein to the petitioner. However, he neither got his temporary allotment adjusted nor took steps to get allotment elsewhere in satisfaction of his claim. After the repeal of Evacuee Laws, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, respondent No, 3 herein, ordered the inclusion of his name in the Khata of the petitioner. This was objected to by the petitioner but with no success. He assailed the order before the Lahore High Court through writ petition claiming that he is also entitled to equal share of land from the temporary allotment of respondent No, 1, which was declined on the ground that allotment being temporary for maintenance and having nothing to do with the transfer of land in lieu of verified claims, the plea of the petitioner could not be allowed.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Abul Asim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioners and have perused the record of the case.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that he had been exclusively allotted land in lieu of his verified claim and that the order of Settlement Record Office dated 31-7-1968 on the representation of respondent No, 1 directing inclusion of his name in the record-of-rights was wrong and illegal and void ab into. This aspect of the case has been fairly considered by the Settlement Authorities. Admittedly, the claim was joint in the name of Fateh Muhammad and Ajaz Din and the allotment in lieu thereof could only be made to both of them and this being a clerical error, the Settlement Record Office was within its right to make the amendment. Before them the petitioner did not challenge the inclusion of respondent No, 1 in the allotment made in his favour provided the latter is ready to include him in the temporary allotment standing in his name to which respondent No, 1 never agreed on the ground that the Q.P.R. Were regarding the inherited property but the temporary allotment was only for Guzara in which the petitioner could not claim any right. The Settlement Officers as well as the High Court came to the conclusion that the order of the Settlement Record Office was strictly according to law as the claim was joint in the name of respondent No, 1 and the petitioner and the allotment in lieu thereof could not legally be made only in the name of the petitioner. The temporary allotment obviously is in the name of respondent No, 1 alone and since it is only for Guzara, the petitioner had no right to claim a share in it and in arriving at this conclusion the High Court did not commit any legal error.
5. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.