1. MUHAMMAD AKRAMJ.-This will dispose of the two connected Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 558 of 1976 and 559 of 1976 aris--ing out of a consolidated judgment dated 16th of February, 1976 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissing the two writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners. , Abdul Haq predecessor of the petitioner to civil Petition No. 558 of 1976 and his son Abdul Ghani petitioner in Civil Petition No. 559 of 1976 migrated to Pakistan is the wake of the communal disturbances of 1947. On the 15th February, 1951 and 30th of April, 1952 they were confirmed lands on their res--pective khatas situated in Chak No. 133/RB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. There was no appeal or revision filed against these allotments of the lands to them. But afterwards on the 11th of November, 1956, Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, passed an order for general revision of the allotments made in a number of chaks including the present Chak No. 133/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. On this Abdul Haq and Abdul Ghani petitioner filed a joint writ petition against the order, which was allowed by the High Court. Dilawar Hussain respondent however, went up in civil petition for special leave to appeal against the order. In course of time the Supreme Court accepted his appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh disposal. After the remand the High Court impleaded a number of interested persons as respondents before it. On the 17th of March, 1965, a Division Bench of the High Court accepted the writ petition and quashed the revisional order passed by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner. This gave rise to another civil petition for special' leave to appeal filed by Dilawar Khan respondent against the judgment of the High Court. On the 26th of October, 1971 this Court accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court, recalled the two writs issued by it and restored the order of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner for general revision of the allotments in these chaks including those in Chak No. 133/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. The judgment 1n the case is reported as Barkat Ali and others v. Maula Bakhsh and others (PLD 1972 SC 307 ). The petitioners filed a review petition against the order which was dismissed by this Court on the 22nd of October, 1973 with the remarks that in case they were of the opinion that their rights were not affected by the judgment already delivered by the Supreme Court, then they should raise the plea before the Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities.
2. In due course on the 28th of August, 1975, the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan Division, Camp Sahiwal, dismissed the two revisions before him and refused to confirm the land in dispute in their favour.
3. This order gave rise to the two separate Writ Petitions No. 1066-8 of 1975 by the legal representatives of Abdul Haq deceased and No. 1065-R of 1975 by Abdul Ghani petitioner. The two writ petitions were heard and dismissed together by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 16th of February, 1976. Hence these two separate petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment.
4. We have heard the Learned counsel for the petitioners in these two petitions before us. It is evident from the above that the order dated 11 of November 1956 passed by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner for a general revision of the ail:,t;:,e;3ts made in a number of chaks including those in the present Chak No. 133/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court vide the judgment in the reported case of Barkat Ali and others v. -Maula Bakhsh and ushers. The learned Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner had ordered that the persons eligible for allotment of the lands in these chaks would be :----
(a) Persons who were temporary allottees and gave their claim forms for this very estate and whose claims has been received by or were pending on the prescribed date.
(6) Persons who were temporary allottees and had registered their claim forms for different- estates but had got the same transferred to this estate on or before the prescribed date.
(c) Persons who were Government servants or such other non-allottees of the estate who had been permitted to be treated as allottees in accordance with paragraph 7, Part II of tire Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and had put in claims form for this very estate and whose claim forms were pending satisfaction on the prescribed date.
5. The petitioners on migration from India had settled in chak no t33/E8, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. Abdul Haq deceased had applied for being given maintenance allowance which was allowed to him by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. After the cancellation of the land from his name in pursuance to the order dated 11-11-1956 passed by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and 'Settlement commissioner, Abdul Haq took his claim by transfer to Chak No. 57/5-L Tehsil and District Sahiwal. It was only afterwards that on the 2nd of January, 1967 his claim fur satisfaction of 2,100 units was transferred back to this Chak No. 133/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. As such, his claim was not pending for satisfaction in this state on the prescribed date on the 20th of October 1956 and therefore he was ineligible for any allotment of the land to him in this chak in pursuance to the order dated 11-I1-1956 passed by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner. Moreover, according to the learned Singly Judge Abdul Haq as an allowance-holder had already been treated as an allottee in the congested tract of Sahiwal and was consequently made allotment in. Chak No. 57/5-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal as a temporary allottee. Therefore, he could not v, hi;: retaining the land allotted to him in Chak No. 57/5-L as ath temporary allottee lay his claim to the allotment of the land in dispute in Chak No. 133/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal as well and deemed to be a temporary allottee in the two different estates at the sahiwal time. In this connection the case of Abdul Ghani petitioner was still worse. He was neither an allowance-holder nor a temporary allottee in this estate was his claim pending in the estate before the target date. In this view of the matter the High Court was justified in rejecting the two writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners.
6. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the ratio in Noor Muhammad and 5 others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee, Pakpattan and 3 others (PLD 1974 Note 5 at p. 32) to the effect that the judgment of the High Court was inter se between the parties and those parties to the judgment who being adversely affected by the same did not challenge it in appeal before the Supreme Court, were bound by the same as it became final and effective against their interest.
7. Relying on this it was contended before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only Dilawar Hussain respondent had gone up in civil petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court on the 17th of March 1965 which nonetheless was never set aside by the Supreme Court qua the remaining private respondents. At first sight this argument advanced before us appeared to be quite attractive and we were inclined to entertain this plea. But on further consideration we found no force in this contention. We, therefore, called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to address further arguments and reheard these petitions. It is not denied before us that the pasties herein were represented before the Supreme Court also in the reported case of Barkat Ali and others v. Maula Bakhsh and others (supra).) Therefore, the judgment dated 28th of October, 1971 delivered by the Supreme Court in that case was binding on the parties hereto as well. In the result the writs issued by the High Court bad been recalled and the order dated 11-11-19`6 passed by Mr. I. U. Khan, the then Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, for a general revision of the allotments in the chak was held as binding between the parties hereto. On the 28th of August, 1975, Mr. Saleem Akhtar Rana, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation)/ Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan, Division, Multan pissed the impugned order in revision in consonance with the directions issued by Mr. I. U.
8. Khan and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the two writ petitions filed by the petitioners against that order. We see no force to interfere in these proceedings for special leave to appeal. These are, therefore, hereby rejected.