1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment dated 13-2-1978 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1171/R of 1978.
2. The case has a chequered history, but it is not necessary to recount it in view of the fact that it was ultimately disposed of in the light of an agreement between the parties. Suffice it to say that the petitioners are refugees from village Rakhsera, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal (India). They felt aggrieved by the action of the Central Record Office in not verifying the Ghair Mahfooz portion of the Shamlat land abandoned in India. A representation was submitted by them in this regard, which was accepted on, 30-4-1952 by Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Rehabilitation Commissioner and their shares were verified according to the actual possession held by them. Subsequently, this mode of verification was modified in view of certain information received from India in 1957 and their shares were verified according to the proportion of proprietary rights (Had Rasad Khewal) held by them.
3. Some other persons made a representation to the successor of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, namely. Mr. M.
4. H. Soofi, for review of the last mentioned order and for reverting to the principle for verification Laid down by Mr. Akhtar Hussain. This representation, however, was dismissed by Mr. Soofi vide iris. Order dated 22-6-1973. Against this decision two writ petitions were preferred in the High Court. These petitions were accepted by a learned Judge of the High Court, on, 20-5-1971 and the order of Mr. Soofi set aside. The practical result of this order, according to the petitioners, was that the allotments secured by them were liable to be reduced. Accordingly, they challenged the action and orders passed by the Central Record Office in implementing the orders of the High Court by filing the present writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 1171/R of 1976. It was submitted that the petitioners were not parties before the learned Judge when he passed his order dated 20-5-1971.
5. Hence no order adverse to their interests could be given effect to by the Central Record Office by reducing their entitlement. The counsel for the respondents did not contest before the High Court the correctness of the submission that an order adverse to the petitioners could not have been passed without bearing them, but submitted that as the petitioners' claims were verified on the basis of Hasab Rasad Khewal, their interests would not be affected even if the petitioners were made allotments on the basis of possession. After some argument at the Bar it was agreed between the parties that if any area involved in this petition was allotted to the. Respondents earlier in time than the petitioners, the respondents would e entitled to retain that. However, if the allotments made in favour of the petitioners were first in point of time, in that case the petitioners could retain the area so allotted. Consequently, in view of the above agreement of the learned counsel for the parties it was directed that the allotments prior in time in whosoever favour these were made were to remain intact, and if the petitioners were to lose some land from their allotments because those had been allotted earlier to the respondents then for the lost land the petitioners would be entitled to allotment of some other land available, or any other relief could be granted to them by the authorities concerned, in accordance with law. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of on 13-2-1978 in the above terms.
6. The petitioners, however, appear to have had second thoughts in the matter and filed a Review Application (R. A. No. 28/1978) in Writ Petition No. 1171/R of 1976 against the above order. The said application, however, was dismissed. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the decision in Writ Petition No. 1171/R of 1976.
7. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court had not properly appreciated the case of the petitioners as this was disposed of with some other connected matters and, therefore, his order was liable to be set aside.
8. We do not consider this case to be a fit one for interference. After having gone through the order of the learned Judge, we observe that it is based on the submissions made by their counsel and it is stated in the order that it was dictated in their presence. The learned counsel who appeared before the High Court is Writ Petition No. 1171/R of 1976 himself submitted the review application. The observation that the order in the writ petition was dictated in his presence was reiterated in the order whereby the review application was dismissed. It was further observed that the order passed being in the nature of a consent order, there was no justification to review it. We are in agreement with this approach. A long-standing dispute in connection with which different orders had been passed by various authorities from time to time was ultimately disposed of by the consent of the parties' counsel and it will not be appropriate, in these circumstances, to reopen the matter again.
9. In any case, the orders-impugned before us being in the nature of consent orders, the petition for leave to appeal directed against them misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.