KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHANJ.-The petitioner who is a refugee from Nabha State (India) was allotted land measuring 8 acres in Chak No. 109/15-L and 15 acres and 1 kanal in the adjoining Chak No. 99/15-L. Both these Chaks fall in the same patwar circle and are situated in Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, where as per instructions issued under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme there is fixed a ceiling of 12 -- acres beyond which land cannot be allotted to any refugee. As the total allotment made to the petitioner exceeded the aforesaid permissible ceiling, therefore, making grievance of the same Ashiq Ali (respondent No. 1) filed an appeal against order dated 31.8-1961, whereby land in excess of permissible ceiling in Chak No. 99/15-L was confirmed in the name of the petitioner. The learned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) rejected that appeal on 15-2- 1962. Respondent No. l then filed a revision which was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan, on 30-7-1962, whereby he sliced away Killas Nos. 20 and 23 of Square No. 63 from the allotment of the petitioner and gave the same to the said respondent whose allotment was still less than the permissible ceiling though his cl2im otherwise was for more land.
2. The things remained quiet for a pretty long time but it appears that somewhere in year 1969 (to be more precise on or about 6-4-1969) the petitioner filed a revision against the last mentioned order of the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 30-7-1962. This revision was rejected by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 7-8-1970, who held that he had no jurisdiction to sit in further revision against a revisional order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. This aspect of the matter has not been taken exception to before us.
3. At this stage the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1068/R of 1970 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 22- 5-1975 on the short ground that the petitioner really wanted to challenge the order of the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 30-7-1962 after a belated period of about 8 years and that there was no justification to ignore the said delay especially when the petitioner even was guilty of negligence in approaching a wrong Court viz. Of the Settlement and Rehabili--tation Commissioner and that too after a long time in year 1969. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 30-7-1962 was an ex parte order which was passed against his client without impleading him in the revision petition and without issuing him any notice. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, as the said order was ab initio void, therefore, mere laps: of time could not bestow any validity on it and as such the.
High Court should have proceeded to quash the same on its own intrinsic defect regardless of any laches on the part of the peti--tioner. We need not attend to the fact as to whether the petitioner was issued notice or was otherwise aware of the aforesaid order because we are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to show as to how he can be given land in excess of the permissible ceiling in the estate concerned. As a matter of fact the point that there exists such a ceiling in that area was not taken exception to by the learned counsel for the petitioner though learned counsel for the caveator (respondent) even otherwise successfully showed by reference to an order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Khanewal, dated 18-0-1963 that on this very ground certain other area (viz Killas Nos. 24 and 25 in Square No. 63 of Chak No. 99/15-L, i.e. ) in this very estate was earlier also taken away from the petitioner on 16-6-1962 an allotted to the present respondent against which the appeal of the petitioner failed on 18-4-1963, and that the petitioner did not challenge that order an, further by means of any writ petition, etc. He submitted that if that principle was accepted by the petitioner vie-a-vie the land involved in the aforesaid orders dated 16-6-1962 and 18-4-1963, he had no right to challenge the present impugned order which proceeds on the same basis. Learned counsel for the respondent placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 18-4-1963 which supports his plea. It was not disputed before us, that if the case is to be examined from this point of view, then the field numbers which are the subject-matter of the present controversy were really in excess of the ceiling of allotment fixed in the relevant area. If that is so, then it is obvious that the petitioner in the present proceedings is trying to have Ian to such extent which the law on the subject does not permit him to have. It is thus clear that in such circumstances the High Court would not have been able to grant any relief to the petitioner, even if the defect of lack, on his part, assuming without conceding was liable to be ignored. The result is that this is not a fit case warranting interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. The stay order issued earlier is hereby vacated.