Facts as gathered from the address at the Bar are that property/Khasra No.964/1 measuring 12 Kanals, 13 Marlas included some residential rooms. The land reflected by the above Khasra number was allotted and confirmed in the name of Fateh Muhammad at Khata No.308 of Register RL-II on 3-9-1963. The allotment became final. The land was transferred to Abdul Hakim on 13-3-1968 through mutation No.2946. Abdul Hakim later on transferred the property to Habib Ahmad, respondent No. 1, vide Mutation No.2952. These mutations were duly incorporated in the Jamabandi, Habib Ahmad initially filed ejectmet applications against the petitioners; the occupants of the residential rooms, but on failure to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, filed suit for possession which was initially dismissed on 11-11-1974, but succeeded in appeal on 5-7-1978. Regular Second Appeal No.639 of 1978 was heard and disposed of by this Court in the following, manner:--- "Learned counsel for the parties agree that the judgment and decree impugned herein may stand but it may not be executed to the extent of that property out of the disputed property which has allegedly been transferred to the appellants under Settlement Scheme No.9 till the question of transfer under that scheme is finally decided by the competent authorities on the Settlement side.
It is further agreed that if the Settlement authorities finally decide the matter against the respondent, he will be at liberty to pursue such remedies as may be open to him under law; but if these remedies do not yield the result desired by the respondent, the decree as against the property transferred to the appellants would become inoperative. As for costs, learned counsel for the parties desire that the parties may bear their own costs.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
2. Side by side, the petitioner herein continued their efforts for transfer of the property and were ultimately successful in having declaration that this was a residual property and each of the petitioner being occupant was transferred the portion in his possession. It is claimed that respective transfer documents have been issued in favour of the petitioners. Litigation on the settlement side ensured which culminated in the revisional order passed by Additional Commissioner Revenue, Faisalabad/Administrator, Residual Properties, Jhang. It was held by the learned Officer that the allotment made in the year 1963 in favour of Fateh Muhammad attained finality and could not be undone after the repeal of. The relevant laws in 1974. It was further held that the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties was right in holding that the petitioners obtained the transfer by withholding the necessary information that the land already stood transferred in 1963 to Fateh Muhammad. The petitioners further suppressed the information that Habib Ahmad, respondent No-1, being successor from the original allottee was seeking their eviction from the disputed property. The Administrator further overruled the objection that the property was urban and could not be allotted against the rural claim, inasmuch as, he found that in 1963 the property was outside the urban limits. The petitioners being aggrieved have filed this Constitutional petition for setting aside the orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 (Deputy Administrator and Administrator Residual Properties) and for a direction that the property be transferred to the petitioner under Residual Properties Scheme.
3. In support of this petition the learned counsel has repeatedly and vehemently alleged that the so-called transfer of the property to Fateh Muhammad in 1963 as land be ignored as same was entirely void and, therefore, of no legal benefit to the allottee. On these premises learned counsel wants this Court to hold that the property was as such available and could be and ought to be transferred to the petitioner under the Residual Properties Scheme since the petitioners' possession is beyond challenge. In order to canvass the finding, learned counsel has annexed large number of documents from which the learned counsel prays that this Court draw an inference that the property is urban residential unit and could not have been transferred as land in 1963.
4. The petition is contested with equal vehemence by learned counsel for respondent No. 1. It is urged by him that the petition suffers from non joinder of the original allottee, namely, Fateh Muhammad, and as such is liable to be dismissed. It is also urged that in view of the decree in favour of respondent No. 1, dated 5-7-1978 as upheld by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.639 of 1978, the prayer made in this petition cannot be allowed and the issue stands finally settled in favour of respondent No. l .
5. In my view this petition must fail on the ground of existence of judgment and decree dated 5-7- 1978 passed in favour of respondent No. l and upheld by this Court is Regular Second Appeal No.639 of 1978. Respondent No. l was suing for possession on the basis of title and got a decree. The issue, in so far as the question of title of respondent No. l is concerned, stands finally determined and cannot be undone in these proceedings nor can be collaterally challenged. At least no case for collateral challenge has been made/argued before me. Besides and apart from the decree, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the learned counsel that the allotment made in 1963 and which remained unchallenged till the repeal of the relevant laws in 1974, should be ignored altogether and a finding be given that the property is available for being dealt with under the Residual Properties Scheme. Prima facie an allotment is an allotment and unless same is held to be illegal or void, it continues to hold the field. The Administrator can only deal with the Residual Properties and it does not seem that the law-giver has entrusted the function of scrutinizing the earlier transfers and allotments to the Deputy Administrator or the Administrator. Perhaps in exercise of the power he could hold in favour of the availability in some clear cut cases, but power cannot be extended to reviewing the allotments/transfers which attained finality under the repealed laws. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner/Administrator cannot be said to be illegal or without lawful authority it seems, after the repeal of the Settlement Laws, the only forum left for resolving such controversies is the Court of general jurisdiction, viz. The Civil Court and in this case a decree has been given in favour of respondent No. l which upholds the ownership of respondent No. l and thus forecloses the issue for all times to come.
For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.