ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 13-3-1956 dismissing their writ petition in limine.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed a claim for the land abandoned by their grandfather Fateh Khan and grandmother Mst. Goongi who had died in India.
The claim was verified by the Central Record Room and an area equivalent to 204 units was confirmed in the name of the respondents by A.R.C. In village Khudian Tehsil and District Kasur on 27-3-1953. This allotment was later cancelled by the A.R.C. On 14-11-1956 on the ground that no heir of Mst. Goongi, the original allottee was available. This order, it appears, was passed without notice to the allottee and/or her eligible heirs. The land cancelled from the name of the respondents was allotted to the present petitioners. The respondents came to know of the cancellation of their allotment in the year 1970 when they preferred an appeal which was rejected by the, Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 11-11-1971 but their revision petition was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 2-6-1972 set aside the orders dated 14-11-1956 and 11-11-1971 and restored the allotment of the land in dispute in the name of Mst. Goongi with the direction that the land should be mutated in favour of her legal heirs. Petitioners appear to have taken some proceedings which, to, finally culminated in the order dated 9-7-1977 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) whereby allotment in the name of Mst. Goongi was again restored at Khata No.306 of RL-11 of Mauza Khudian with the direction that the land should be mutated in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 being. The legal heirs of Mst. Goongi. Petitioners challenged this order in constitutional petition which was decided on 26-3-1990 and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer to dispose of their revision petition afresh.
3. In post-remand proceedings, Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as notified officer with the powers of Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 18-11-1992 also restored the allotment of the land in the name of Mst. Goongi and directed that it should be mutated in favour of her eligible heirs. In implementation of this order, the collector found that respondents Nos.3 and 4 were eligible heirs of Mt. Goongi being her distant grand-sons and directed that mutation in their names be entered in the Revenue Record. Petitioners challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner and of the Collector in revision which was dismissed on 7-5-1994, they then filed Writ Petition No.186-R of 1996 in Lahore High Court which has been dismissed in limine vide the impugned order holding that the orders of the lower authorities were based on findings of fact which could not be successfully challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction. It was further observed by the learned Judge that even the learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the fact that the respondents were eligible heirs of Mst. Goongi, the original allottee. It was also found that the order of allotment in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 having attained finality, it was to late in the day to challenge it.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not denied that the land in dispute was allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in lieu of the verified claim of their grand-mother Mst.
Gonngi nor has he disputed the finding that the allotment of the said respondents was cancelled without notice to them. That being so, the orders of the Settlement Authorities restoring the allotment of the land in dispute in the name of the said respondents are unexceptionable.
Grievance vehemently voiced by the learned counsel, however, was that since the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners 34 years ago, and they had also developed it, it was highly unjust to restore it to the respondents who according to the learned counsel, should have been accommodated else where We find no merit in this contention. The land in dispute having been cancelled without notice to the respondents, it was rightly restored to them. It may also be pertinently observed that the order of the notified officer dated 18-11-1992 whereby allotment of the land in dispute in the name of Mst. Goongi was restored was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. l l l -R of 1993 but they admittedly withdrew that writ petition. They were, therefore, esteemed from questioning the validity of the order dated 18-11-1992, or making any grievance against the restoration of the allotment/land in dispute to Mst. Goongi and/or her legal heirs, the respondents.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that no case is made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused. We would however, like to observe that sine the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners when it stood cancelled from the name of the respondents and now that they stand deprived of that land for not fault of theirs, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, if approached by the petitioners, should ensure the allotment of some alternative land to them.