1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This case has come up to this Court for the second time. On the first occasion the matter was before the Court in connection with CPSLA No. 326 of 1975, filed by Allah Yar (petitioner herein) to question the order of the High Court dated 14-3-1975, passed in W. P. 64-R of 1973, filed by Gamun Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 6 herein, whereby the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land, Sahiwal, dated 4-9-1969, confirming the disputed piece of land in favour of the petitionerwas set aside.
2. The relevant background is that one Butey Khan owned land in villages Bhala and Ludhiana Uncha, Tehsil Nawan Shehar, District Jullundar (East Punjab), India. He died issueless before establishment of Pakistan. Different persons filed claims at different places in respect of the land abandoned by him. In this connection Gamun Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents `'` 1 to 6, got an area of 502 kanals from Butey Khan deceased confirmed against his Claim Form No. 8421 in Chak No. 45/SB, Khotipur, Tehsil Depalpur District Sahiwal on 12-10-1957. Earlier Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of Mst. Kubra Bibi and Mst. Nusrat Bibi (respondents 10 and 11 herein), Niaz Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of Habib Khan respondent r. No. 9, and Fazal Muhammad and Ali Gohar, sons of Chhaju Khan (respon--dents 7 and 8) and Habib Khan son of Aitta Muhammad (respondent No. 9 herein) had got land confirmed in Chak No. l6/G. B., District Sheikhupura, on 14-12-1955. It seems that subsequently Fazal Mohammad and Gohar got their share of units transferred to District D. G. Khan.
3. On 30-7-1962 Allah Yar petitioner made a mukhbari application alleg--ing -that Gamun Khan had fraudulently obtained the allotment of land abandoned by Butey Khan deceased. The said application was dealt with by different Courts and ultimately on the application for said Gamun Khan it was transferred to Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan, Settlement Commissioner. The record of the case was duly received in this Court on 11-10-1968. By that time the Enforcement Staff had inquired into the matter regarding Gamun Khan's allotment in District Sahiwal and the allotments of Ghulam Muhammad etc. In District Sheikhupura.
4. However, as no progress was being made in the determination of the said application, Allah Yar, petitioner herein, submitted another application to complain against the allotment to Gamun Khan, to the Administrator, Martial Law, Sahiwal, on 21-5-1969. This was entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sahiwal for disposal, who is alleged to have summoned Gamun Khan, but it does not appear that be was duly served in this behalf. However, the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner proceeded to decide the case and cancelled the allotment made in favour of Gamun Khan in Chak No. 42/S. B. Khotipur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal, and allotted the land so cancelled in favour of Allah Yar, petitioner herein on 22-11-1969. Consequently, the case pending in the Court of Sardar Hidayatullah Khan Mokal became infructuous, as the matter in dispute stood decided by the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settle--ment Commissioner, SahiwaL Aggrieved by the order dated 22-11-1969 passed by the D.
5. C./Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gamun Khan filed Settlement Revision No. 3 of 1970 in the Lahore High Court, which was con--verted into a writ petition (W. P. 64-R of 1973) and was allowed by the learned Single Judge Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain, vide his order dated 14-3-1975, on the ground that the impugned order had been passed in the absence of Gamun Khan and without due notice tip him.
6. The petitioner herein filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 326 of 1975 in this Court against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-3-1975, which was dismissed on 31-7-1975. However in the concluding portion of the order it was observed as follows;-- "Before taking leave of the case we would however, like to observe that it would be necessary for the Rehabilitation Authorities to determine as to which of the two sets claiming to be legal heirs of Butey Khan has a legitimate right and to what extent. Apparently both the sets claiming the entire inheritance to the exclusion of the other cannot be the legal heirs and the matter which the petitioner would be at liberty .o pursue does in our opinion, require further investigation. With these observations, the petition is dismissed."
7. In pursuance of the above observations of this Court Allah Yar petitioner moved an application before the Settlement Commissioner (L) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (L), Punjab, on 22-8-1975, that the claims of the respective sets of legal heirs be examined and the land cancelled from either the name of Gamun Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 6 at Chak No. 45/S. B, Khotipur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal, or from the names of respondents 7 to 11 and be allotted to him. This application was decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land), Punjab, vide his order dated 27-8-1977. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that Ghulam Mohammad, Niaz Mohammad, Ali Go-bar and Atta Muhammad were not entitled to any share in the inheritance of Butey Khan deceased and that Gamun Khan, being his nearest relation, was the sole heir of Butey Khan to the exclusion of all others. As a result, the learned Settlement Commis-- sioner, exercising powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, ordered the allotment secured by Gamun in Chak No. 45/S. B., Khotipur, Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal in his capacity a3 also heir of Butey Khan, was maintainable and accordingly the same was restored in his favour, whereas the allotment secured by Ghulam Muhammad in Chak No. 16/G. B., District Sheikhupura, and all other allotments obtained by or on behalf of respondents 7 to 11, as heirs of Butey Khan would stand cancelled and the land resumed forthwith.
8. Aggrieved by the above order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner two writ petitions were filed against it in the High Court. W. P. 1291-R of 1977 was filed by the petitioner herein, praying for a declaration that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (L) was without lawful authority and that he was entitled to be declared as owner and proprietor of the land in dispute, i.e. The land situate in Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal ; while the other writ petition, bearing No. 1292-R of 1977, was filed by Mst. Nusrat Bibi, respondents 10 and 11 herein (widow and daughter of Ghulam Muhammad respectively), praying that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, declaring respondents 1 to 6 as legal heirs of Butey Khan be declared as illegal and without jurisdiction and that they be held as legal heirs of Butey Khan deceased and owners and proprietors of the land allotted and confirmed m the name of Ghulam Muhammad, prodecessor-in-interest of petitioner herein etc. In Chak No. 16/G. B., District Sheikhupura.
9. Both the writ petitions were heard on the same date, namely, 28-9-1977, but the last mentioned Writ Petition No. 1292-R of 1977, filed by respon--dents 10 and 1 l herein, was taken up first and disposed of with the following observations :---- "The case of the petitioners is based on the pedigree-table Annexure but it does not connect the petitioners Ghulam Muhammad with Butey Khan refugee right holder collaterals. According to this document Ghulam and Ali Gohar are co-owners but not relatives. The finding of fact is correct.
10. Dismissed."
11. The other Writ Petition, bearing No. 1291-R of 1977, filed by Allah Yar, petitioner, was then taken up and disposed of with the following observations :- "I have already dismissed Writ Petition No. 1292/R of 1977by Mst. Kubra and Mst. Nusrat Bibi, heirs of Ghulam Muhammad, deceased, and held that this pedigree-table does not connect Ghulam Muhammad collaterally with Butey Khan, refugee right holder, although Ghulam Muhammad was a co-owner in village. In view of this finding, the petitioner has no case. Even otherwise the dispute being between the persons claiming to be the heirs of Butey Khan and that dispute having been settled, Allah Yar has no locus standi to file a writ petition to urge that the person in whose favour the finding was given was not the heir and another person had succeeded to Bootey Khan.
12. Dismissed"
13. To challenge this order passed by the High Court, Allah Yar, petitioner has now filed this second petition for leave to appeal.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and examin--ing the available record, we are satisfied that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, as upheld by the High Court, that Gamun was the nearest relation and the sole heir of Butey Khan to the exclusion of all others, requires no interference. Moreover, the petitioner has been allotted the land that has become available on account of the cancellation of the allotment of Mst. Kubra Bibi and Mst. Nusrat Bibi, heirs of Ghulam Muhammad, in District Sheikhupura, and does not appear to have any locus standi to agitate the matter further. His insistence that he should be allotted the land that has been allotted to the heirs of Gamun Khan in Tehsil Depalpur, District Sahiwal, is misconceived' In this view of the matter, this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.