' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above appeals, which have arisen out of a consolidated judgment dated 29-3-1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petitions Nos.2752-R of 1976 and 2017-R of 1976.
2. The facts, in brief, .Are that the disputed land, measuring 80 Kanals, is situated in Chak No,69/EB, Tehsil Eakpattan, then District Sahiwal, out of which 26 Kanals were initially allotted on temporary basis to one Jan Muhammad. Admittedly, after four harvests, Jan Muhammad abandoned the said land and left for some other village for good. Thereafter, the same land was allotted to the appellants in Civil Appeal No,995 of 1995 on temporary basis. The then Rehablitation Commissioner (Mr. I.U. Khan) vide order dated 11-11-1956 directed for revision of allotments in fourteen Chaks (inclusive of Chak No,69/EB) because many underserving persons had succeeded in obtaining allotments. Accordingly, scrutiny of allotments in Chak No,69/EB was carried out, and the land measuring 26 Kanals remained intact in the names of the appellants on the ground that they were sitting allottees. The allotment made in their names was found to be in order. The aforementioned order of Mr. I.U. Khan was challenged before the High Court through a number of writ petitions, which were allowed and the said order was set aside. The parties concerned agitated the matter before this Court, which on 6-7-1962, reversed the judgment of the High Court, insofar as the legality of the order of Mr. I.U. Khan was concerned, with the result that it stood restored. But, the case of Chak No,69/EB was sent back to the High Court to be decided afresh after hearing all the parties concerned. The High Court decided the matter against the appellants in Civil Appeal No,995 of 1995. Resultantly, they filed civil petition for leave to appeal in this Court, which was ultimately allowed on 18-11-1971. Thereafter, an area measuring 80 Kanals and 10 Marlas, non-subject-matter of the dispute in these appeals, inclusive of 26 Kanals, above mentioned, was allotted to the appellants on 19-7-1975. The contesting respondents in Civil Appeal No,995 of 1995 set up claim to the entire land measuring 80 Kanals and 10 Marlas, urging that, out of it, land measuring 26 Kanals was initially allotted to Jan Muhammad, their predecessor-in-interest, on temporary basis, and they, as his legal heirs, were entitled to its confirmation. To achieve this goal, they filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the then Additional Commissioner vide order dated 23-7-1976, whereby the area measuring 80 Kanals and 10 Marlas was directed to be divided equally between the parties. Thereafter, the appellants filed Writ Petitions Nos.2017-R and 2752-R of 1976, which were dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29-3-1994.
3. Vide order dated 24-7-1995 leave to appeal was granted in both the cases to consider, inter alia, "whether the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the judgment of Supreme Court dated 28-10-1971 (PLD 1972 Se 307) mentioned in paragraph 3 at page 6 of the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal".
4. At the very outset, Ch. Noor Ilahi, learned counsel for the appellants does not want to press Appeal No,995 of 1995, which is dismissed, as not pressed.
5. Mr. M. Zainul Abidin, learned counsel for the appellants (in Civil Appeal No,996 of 1995), inter alia, contended that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and have minutely examined the record. The learned Judge in Chambers did consider all the averments of the parties and we have also gone through "Naqsha Taqseem" (available at page 25 of the Paper Book) in which name of Anwar Ali only is mentioned, whereas name of Sardar Ali is not mentioned. There is a finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan (available at page 36 sf the Paper Book), that Jan Muhammad predecessor-in-interest (the father of Mst. Bashiran the appellant in Appeal No,995 of 1995) was the original allottee of 26 Kanals of land and the respondents were their tenants but on account of death of Jan Muhammad respondents took advantage of the situation because they were minors and manipulated re- allotment of their temporary allotted property in the name of Anwar Ali and got included Sardar Ali as a family member, without any order from any competent Rehabilitation Authority and without any notice to Mst. Bashiran and others. This order dated 23-7-1976 of Additional Commissioner was challenged before the High Court. It would be pertinent to refer here the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment, which read as under:-- "5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No,1 has held that the respondents (in W.P. No,2017 of 1976) were to be treated as 'original temporary allottees'. In his view, the best course to sort out the controversy was to divide the disputed land equally between the contesting parties.
6. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents (in W.P. No,2017 of 1976) that, as a matter of fact, the petitioners in the said writ petition did not have any real entitlement to their credit and that they had manoeuvred some bogus verifications in their names. In order to ascertain the factual position, relevant record was summoned from the Central Record Room. It was produced on 15-12-1993 and it transpired therefrom that an area measuring 87 Bighas, 4 Biswa s each was verified in the names of Anwar Ali and Sardar Ali (petitioners in W.P.
No,2017 of 1976) on 8-7-1984 on the claim form submitted by their predecessor-in-interest Imdad Ali.
' In my view, the impugned order does not merit to be interfered with as it. Is not only in accordance with law but also equitable. The petitioners in W.P. No,2017 of 1976 could not establish on record their rights over the entire disputed, land measuring 80 Kanals, 10 Marlas. Twenty-six Kanals, undoubtedly, were allotted to them on temporary basis after the same was abandoned by Jan Muhammad in 1949. They can validly set up a claim qua this piece of land only. That is not all.
Keeping in view the guidelines mentioned in the order of Mr. I.U. Khan, it was necessary for them to establish that they had an outstanding claim pending satisfaction, available in the Chak before the target date, i.e,, 15-6-1954. As mentioned above, area measuring 87 Bighas, 3 Biswas 'each was verified in their names on the strength of claim forms submitted by their predecessor-in-interest as late as on 8-7-1984. Strictly speaking, this verification could not be availed of by them at all so as to claim even an inch of land in this Chak. They have already been liberally dealt with by respondent No,1 by allotment of 14 Kanals over and above 26 Kanals of land which was temporarily allotted to them in 1949. They should feel content therewith."
7. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court is based on the proper appreciation of the facts and law laid down by this Court. We do not find jurisdictional error or misconstruction of law, rather the judgment is based on the principles of equity, fair play, and justice. The learned High Court in its wisdom has done complete justice to the parties. The impugned judgment is not open to exception. Appeal No,996 of 1995 is without merit and substance which must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.