' ZIA MAHMOOD MIR ZA, J.---Land measuring 216 Kanals 13 Marlas situate in village Hardo Sahari, Tehsil and District Kasur, which was an evacuee property was purchased by the petitioner from one Nazir Ahmed son of Barkat Ali through a registered sale-deed dated 29-3-1982. According to the petitioner, in September 1989, he came to know that the said land was never allotted to Nazir Ahmed and the so-called allotment in his name was bogus and fraudulent. He, therefore, made an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Kasur for holding an inquiry into the matter and for taking action against those involved in the fraud. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Kasur held an inquiry and found that the land in dispute was never allotted to the said Nazir Ahmed. He, however, recommended that the land in question be sold to the petitioner as he had brought the fraud to the notice of the Authorities. Matter was placed before the District Collector who by his order dated 22-11-4993 endorsed the finding of the A.C. That no allotment in the name of Nazir Ahmad son of Barkat Ali existed in the Register RL-II and that the entry to that effect in the Register 'Haqdaran Zamin' was bogus. Revenue record was directed to be corrected accordingly. It appears that necessary corrections were made in the revenue record showing the land in dispute in the 'Khata' of the Provincial Government whereafter it was allotted/transferred to Nawab son of Ghulam Muhammad respondent No,3, a claimant displaced person.
2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Lahore High Court in a Constitutional petition challenging the order of the District Collector dated 22-11-1993 in so far as it did not attend to the recommendation of A.C. For selling land in dispute to the petitioner and further seeking a declaration that "the petitioner is entitled to purchase of the said land through Board of Revenue respondent No,2 on payment of prescribed Government price per unit for disputed land Writ petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge in the High Court vide order dated 29-6-1994 holding that the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any law under which the petitioner was entitled to the sale of disputed land. It was observed by the learned Judge "Admittedly the petitioner was sold property in dispute in 1982 and was put into possession in the same year, therefore, his case is not covered under section 3(1) of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975."
3. Petitioner filed an I.C.A. Against the order of the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed as incompetent with the observation 'the original order of transfer made in favour of Nazir Ahmad was under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which was appealable and revisable.
That being so, this appeal is hit by proviso to subsection (2) to section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972."
4. Petitioner has now filed this petition to seek leave to appeal against. The order of the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the I.C.A. Bench.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that since no allotment at all was made in favour of Nazir Ahmed, there was no original order of transfer in the field and as such there was no question of its being appealable or revisable. I.C.A. Filed by the petitioner was, therefore, competent. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the impugned orders particularly the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question of competency of I.C.A. As we find that the petitioner has no case on merits and his writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is true that the Assistant Commissioner in his report had, recommended that the land in dispute be sold to the petitioner but this recommendation had no sanction in law. Learned counsel has also quite fairly conceded that since the petitioner was not in possession of the land in dispute during the crucial period envsiaged under section 3(1) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, he was not entitled to purchase the land in dispute. In the circumstances, he cannot make any legitimate grievance against the order of the District Collector or against the allotment/transfer of the land in dispute to respondent No,3, a claimant displaced person whose units were still pending.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal against the impugned orders. This petition is accordingly dismissed.