' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioners seek to appeal against judgment dated 7-3-1993, of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby L.P.A. No, 429 of 1966 was allowed and judgment dated 8-3-1966, of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No,106-R of 1961, was set aside together with order dated 30-9-1959, of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur.
2. The dispute in this case relates to land comprising Plots Nos.18 and 19 measuring 161 Canals and 16 Marla's situated in Chak No,20/F, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur. This land was allotted to the petitioners on temporary basis. It appears that one Muhammad son of Farida the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents somehow got allotted through his attorney Muhammad Bashir Qanoongo land measuring 412 Canals and 12 Marla's including the land in dispute in his favor. The petitioners challenged that order of allotment in appeal but these was dismissed on 30-7-1959, by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners went up in revision against that order before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur, who vides his order dated 30-7-1959, set aside the allotment of the land in dispute and restored the allotment thereof in favor of the petitioners.
3. Muhammad assailed the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner through Writ Petition No,106- R/1961, which was dismissed on 8-3-1966, by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. He did not feel satisfied with the aforementioned orders passed against him and preferred L.P.A. No,429 of 1966, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 7-3-1993, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Muhammad son of Fareeda illegally got allotted the land in dispute through Bashir Ahmed Qanoongo his relative without notice to the petitioners the fact that the petitioners were temporary allotters in possession of the land. It was also submitted that Muhammad was neither temporary allotted of the village nor got transferred his claim in Chak No,20/F, District Bahawalpur by order of a competent Authority before obtaining permanent allotment of the land in question. It was lastly submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner and duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8-3-1966, could not have been set aside by the learned Judges of the Division Bench unless the same were based on misreading or non-consideration of some important material on record.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Status quo to continue meanwhile.