' This review petition was admitted on 9th July 1975, in Writ Petition No, 1516-R of 1974, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and writ could not be issued after lapse of three years, since the petitioner was informed according to M. R. 1 that his entitlement was 132 units.
2. Record was summoned which was produced by the Naib Tehsildar, Central Record Room on 9th July 1975, and the review petition was admitted on the ground that compensation has to be awarded on the basis of Q. P. R. Even if M. R. 1 is wrongly filled. The entitlement of the claimant has to be in accordance with paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation No,
89. Mian Waheed-ud-Din Rathore, Settlement Commissioner (Lands), and 0. S. D., Central Record, Lahore, is present with the record, which consists of written statement filed by the petitioner, referred to in paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation No, 84, printed on page 320 of the book "The Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, X LVII of 1958, 1970 Revised Edition by Mr. M. A. Latif. This is Appendix 'A' (Form M. R.
(1). The petitioner's case falls under column (b) Non-Sir-(i) under permanent tenure-holders under heading "Nature of Rights I-Zamindari" and thus his entitlement has to be determined according to paragraph 9 (II) (i) Part II, Chapter 1, of Supplementary Rural Scheme to the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme i,e, "(II) Non-Sir-where such land is in the occupation of (I) permanent tenure-holders (ii) (iii) . Apportionment of the verified Non-Sir area should be made between the zamindar and the tenant concerned in the ratio of 5:95." In the instant case the apportionment of the petitioner's claim has been made according to this Scheme. Martial Law Regulation No, 89 was further amended by Martial Law Regulation No, 91 vide Notification No, 901/61 dated 25th September 1961. The determination of the claim had to be in accordance with sub- paragraph, (2) of para. 4, which clearly lays down "but where a claim has been reduced under the original Regulation, fresh entitlement shall be determined in accordance with such reduced claim."
Unfortunately, therefore, the operation of Martial Law Regulation No, 89, has to be in accordance with the subsequent Martial Law Regulation No, 91.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then vehemently argued that according to Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962, Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property)
Regulation has been saved and this only applies to Martial Law Regulation No, 89, Martial Law Regulations 84 and 91 having not been saved. The argument is fallacious. Martial Law Regulation No, 84 was replaced by Martial Law Regulation No,
89. Therefore, any amendment' made in Martial Law Regulation No, 89 becomes part of Regulation No, 89, which is clearly saved by the above provision of law. Learned Settlement Commissioner not only produced the record but he ably assisted the Court on facts and law pointing out that Martial Law Regulation No, 91 having been promulgated has become part of Martial Law Regulation No, 89.
4. It was next argued that this type of tenancy was not available in Oudh. This is a question of fact which had to be determined by the Central Record Office. The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into. In any case the petitioner has to blame his own stars for admittedly he filled in the Form wrongly.
5. For the foregoing reasons no case for review is made out. Dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.