' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CJ.---The petitioner, who was respondent in Civil Appeal No. 606 of 1990 before this Court, has filed the above review petition seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 24-11-1992, which reads as follows:- "This appeal through leave of the Court merits to be partly allowed and disposed of in accordance with statement of the learned counsel; which he made after we had heard both the sides as some length.
2. The. Leave Grant Order reads as follows:- "Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while dismissing the appeal, the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court assumed that the case had been remanded by the learned Single Judge to the Revenue Officer of Kasur Circle, whereas, in fact, it was remanded to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West ' Pakistan, Lahore, and it has to be now heard by a Notified Officer under the amended law. It is also contended that if in the remand proceedings the petitioners succeed to be the heirs of the right- holder Mashooq Ali Khan, then there would be no justification to cancel the allotment made long ago in their favour in Faislabad District Contentions raised require consideration."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants gave up all the pleas regarding the validity of 'remand' order.
He, however, sought the option to retain the land in accordance with the choice of the person/ party concerned; in case, as a result of the remand proceedings, the appellant-side is adjudged as entitled to inherit as heirs of the right-older---Mashooq Ali Khan. Let it be so and order accordingly with no order as to costs."
' To understand the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the review petition, it is necessary to state briefly the following facts.
2. One Mashooq Ali, a claimant displaced person, died in the year 1950. His legal heirs got allotment of land in lieu of his claim in Lyallpur (Faislabad) as well as in Lahore. Besides respondents 1 and 2 in the review petition, there were some other persons who also claimed to be legal heirs of said Mashooq Ali. The case of inheritance of allotment of land in favour of deceased Mashooq Ali was dealt with at different levels by various officers in the Settlement Department. From the orders which have been passed from time to time in the case, it appears that as the land was allotted to Mashooq Ali in two districts, there was a conflict of opinion between the various officers of the Settlement Department to deal with the case with regard to their jurisdiction in the case. The matter was ultimately brought before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who found that the controversy in the case was fit to be resolved under section 10 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter, to be referred as 'the Act'). He, accordingly, forwarded the case to Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who was vested with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, under the Act. Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the parties and the informant in the case, passed the following order:- - "From the statements of the Patwaris of the estate of Hindal and entries of Claim Form No,5723 and the Revenue Record produced by the Patwari it is proved beyond doubt that the Claim Form No,5723 was filed by Mashooq Ali Khan and on the basis of Fard-iHaqiat issued by the Central Record Office on the said claim form allotment was confirmed in favour of the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant died and mutation of his inheritance was decided in favour of Wajad Ali etc. In the light of this admitted fact no Fard-i-Haqiat in the name of Mashooq Ali Khan in respect of the land abandoned by him to the estate of Taimoorpur could be issued on any claim form put in by any other person as legal .Heirs. Thus, the duplicate Fard-i-Haqiat issued on Claim Form No,1998 and forwarded to Lyallpur district was issued against the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and instructions issued thereunder. Moreover, it transpires from the entires of Claim Form No,1998 which is also on the file that Claim Form No,1998 was registered in respect of area abandoned by Mst. Siddiquan in the estate of Kahnaur, Tehsil and District Rohtak which further proves that the Fard-i-Haqiat in the name of Mashooq Ali Khan for land abandoned in the estate of Taimoorpur on Claim Form No,1998 was got issued through under-hand means and that no allotment could be made on this Fard-i-Haqiat in Lyallpur District. I, therefore, exercising powersof the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958, order that the allotment confirmed in Chak No,591/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur on the basis of duplicate Fard-i-Haqiat alleged to have been issued in the name of Mashooq Ali Khan son of Ghulam Muhammad Khan in respect of land abandoned by him in the estate of Taimoorpur, be cancelled forthwith."
' After having passed the above order, Ch. Muhammad Hassan in his order further observed that the only question of inheritance of Mashooq Ali remained to be settled and the question of inheritance may now be decided by the Revenue Authorities of the circle concerned. The above order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, was challenged both by respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein as well as Sardar Khan, predecessor of the petitioner and both the petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated 12-5-1969 with these observations:-- "15. Moreover, the position is well-settled that the claim of an informant can be considered only if the party against whom information is laid is held to be disentitled to the allotment. In the present case, therefore, it is only if either or both the sets of allotment are not held entitled to succeed to the claim of Mashooq Ali Khan that Sardar Khan's information will need attention. The writ petition of Sardar Khan at this stage cannot, therefore, be accepted.
16. The upshot is that the order of Ch. Muhammad Hassan dated 25-1-1965 is found to be in accordance with law and to have been passed with lawful authority so far as it relates to the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners Mst. Siddiqan and Mst. Anwari Begum in Chak No,591/GB, Layallpur District is concerned. The direction issued with regard to the manner in which the question of inheritance is to be decided is, however, set aside. The question of inheritance will now be decided instead of by the Revenue Officer of the circle concerned, as proposed in the impugned order, by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore. The result is, that subject to the observations made above, Writ Petition No,315/R-1965 as well as Writ Petition No,607/R of 1965 shall stand dismissed; but with no order as to costs."
' Against the order or learned Single Judge dated 12-5-1969, L.P.A. 257 of 1969 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 2-10-1984. Against the aforesaid order passed by the L.P.A. Bench, leave was granted by this Court and finally the appeal was disposed of as stated above.
' From the above narration of the facts, it is quite clear that the writ petitions filed by the predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners as well as respondents, were dismissed by a learned Single Judge with the observation that the question of inheritance will now be decided instead by Revenue Authorities of circle concerned as roponsed in the judgment of Chief Settlement Commissioner, by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore. Therefore, the only controversy which remained to be resolved in this matter was with regard to inheritance of Mashooq Ali which is now to be decided in terms of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12-5-1969 not by Revenue Officer as directed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner but by Rehabilitation Authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in so far the direction of learned Single Judge while dismissing writ petitions filed by the petitioners as well as respondents, that the inheritance of Mashooq Ali will be decided by the Rehabilitation Authorities, no relief was claimed from this Court by way of a petition for leave to appeal nor they challenged that order before L.P.A. Bench. In these circumstances, there is hardly any scope for seeking review of the order passed by this Court wherein this Court recorded that the respondents, who A were appellants before it, had given up their objections with regard to the validity of the remand order which remained intact and is to be implemented in the same terms as held by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 12-5-1969. No case for review of the judgment of this Court is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.