' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---This appeal by leave is from the order, dated 9-8-1993, of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing Writ Petition No,9-R of 1983 filed by the appellants assailing the order passed against the appellants in post-remand proceedings on 6-12-1982 by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, respondent.
2. Facts which from the background of the controversy between the parties are that by mean of order, dated 17-2-1961 of D.R.C.(L), the appellants were the confirmed allottees of land in Khata No,13/4, R.L.II in village Sahowali, Teshil and District Sialkot. On a report of Patwari that claims of sitting allottees were pending decision in the estate, the allotment of the land of the appellants was cancelled by the order, dated 31-3-1961. The appeal filed by the appellants was accepted by Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) on 7-11-1961 on the ground, firstly, that they were condemned unheard and, secondly, that A.R.C. Had no power to review the allotment confirmed in their favour.
In the meantime the consolidation of land holdings were initiated in the village and a piece of land described as Khasra No,84 old corresponding to Khasra No,128 new measuring 7 Kanals, 12 Marlas emerged as contentious between the parties. On a miscellaneous application by respondent No,1., Additional Deputy Commissioner (C) by his order, dated 15-11-1974, without notice to the appellants, practically annulled the allotment of land bearing old Khasra No,84 to the appellant.
3. The appellants challenged the propriety and validity of the above order in Writ Petition No,614-R of 1975 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who was seized of the matter, observed that the appellants had not been able to produce any allotment order whereunder the Khasra in dispute had been allotted to and confirmed in the name of the respondents before it was confirmed in the names of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, annulled the order impugned before him and "remitted the case to the Officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, at the level of the Settlement Commissioner to hold an inquiry into the controversy as to whether Khasra in dispute was originally confirmed to the petitioners (appellants) or it was allotted prior to that to the respondent..... "
4. In the post-remand proceedings, respondent No,3 after due process reached the conclusion that the land in dispute had been allotted, in the first instance, to respondent No,1 and that "later on 12- 10-1962 it was confirmed to the appellants, maintaining the allotment of land in favour of respondent No,1". This order of respondent No,3 was again impugned before the High Court in Writ Petition No,9-R of 1983 which was dismissed on 9-8-1993 with the following observations:-- "4 In my view, this writ petition has little merit. If Khata RL-II No,13/4 in the name of the writ petitioners is taken into consideration alongwith the statement of Ghulam Mustafa Patwari it becomes abundantly clear that the disputed land was not allotted to the petitioners prior to time vis-a-vis respondent No,1. It was allotted, for the first time, to the petitioners with post-consolidation No,184 on 10-10-1962.
Muhammad Khan, an official from the office of Sadar Qanungo, Sialkot, appeared before learned respondent No,3 and deposed that the disputed Khasra No,84 was allotted to respondent No,1 during the course of consolidation operations in the villages, on his Khata No,1/8 on 30-12-1961. This statement has not been challenged by the petitioners.
' Learned respondent No,3 was, therefore, fully justified in conclude that the disputed Khasra No,811 was allotted to respondent No,1 prior in time vis-a-vis the petitioners. He has rightly allowed him to retain it.
(5) The upshot of the above discussion is that no just and legal exception can be taken to the impugned order. There is no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
5. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellants in the following paragraph of the leave granting order:- "It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question in fact relates to Khata No,4 and Khasra Nos.95 and 97 had been confirmed to the petitioners at Khata No,4 on 25-6-1960 which is supported by a photo copy of an extract from the register (page 37 of the paper book).
Subsequently, the same land was converted into Khasra No,84 during the consolidation proceedings. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge of the High Court did not read the record properly. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has also referred to the statement of the Patwari (pages 27 to 29), which, according to him, further supports the said contention. It has further been contended that the learned Judge in the High Court looked into the Khata No,13/4 instead of Khata No,4 which has resulted into the findings arrived at by him.
' In view of the circumstances, leave is granted to the petitioners to examine the above contentions."
6. Ch. Muzammal Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court, in support of this appeal has reiterated the contention which he had raised at the leave granting stage which in substance was that the findings of official respondents Nos.2 and 3 that Khasra No,84 before consolidation was allotted Khasra No,91 min 94 min and 97 min whereas Khasra No,128 was erroneously held to have been allotted to respondent No,
1. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the learned High Court in the impugned order of dismissal of their Writ Petition No,9-R of 1983 had not at all adverted to the above-noted misreading of evidence highlighted before the learned High Court. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) with powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner, the learned Settlement Commissioner (L), with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, and the High Court, after considering all the relevant material have found that the disputed land had been initially allotted to and confirmed in the name of respondent No,1 and that it was much later, on 12-10-1962, when it was erroneously allotted to the appellants. This is essentially a finding of fact which has not been shown to us to suffer from any misreading or omission to consider the evidence. The case does not involve violation of any principle of law in the appreciation of evidence. The appeal is thus, without any Substance.
7. The result is that this appeal stands dismissed with costs.