' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Rev.)/Notified Officer of cancellation of allotment of land in favour of Ismail having been obtained fraudulently has been dismissed.
2. The land in dispute was allotted against Claim Nos.43403 and 43406 of Ghariba son of Umrao and Bodan son of Umrao, respectively to their heir namely Ismail from whom the petitioners purchased the same.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in the year 1976, a Mukhbari application was made against the said allotment on the ground that the claim-holders never migrated to Pakistan, therefore, the said allotment had been obtained fraudulently. The Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer passed an order under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for cancellation of this allotment against which writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 21-1-2002 against which leave is sought.
4. It has been, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners:--
(a) That the Mukhbari application could not be entertained in 1976 after the repeal of the settlement laws, therefore, it was not a case of pending proceedings, as such, order of the Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer is without lawful authority as he was not vested the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same.
(b) That the Settlement Authorities under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 could not question the validity or correctness of the order of the Claims Officer on merits regrading verification of claims as per rule laid down in the case of Muhammad Siddique and others v. Abdul Majeed and others (1999 SCM R 2674), unless it was shown that those claims were never registered and verified and the same were bogus.
5. The above points by the learned counsel require examination, therefore, leave is granted to consider the same.
6. The possession of the appellants over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the appeal.