1. NASIM HASAN SHAH J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 31-1- 1978, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby L. P. A. No. 1390 of 1966, as also the Civil Miscel--laneous Application filed therein (C. M. No. 9 of 1977 in L P.A. No. 1390 of 1966) were disposed of. ' The facts of the case are somewhat complicated, but it is not necessary to recite them in any detail, because the petitioner No. 1 herein (Wall Muhammad) has, at present, no grievance left, while the other petitioners did not join him when he preferred the Letters Patent Appeal in 1966 and were arrayed as respondents therein and only prayed for being transposed as appellants eleven years thereafter, which prayer was rejected and this order does not call for interference, for the reasons to be mentioned in the sequel. Suffice it to say that petitioner No. 1 and his co-petitioners are refugee claimants and they filed claim forms from village Rasul Nagar, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. They were temporarily allotted land in the said village in the year 1947-48 and they claim to be in possession of the same. The respondents are either refugees from Jammu & Kashmir, or are local tenants. In 1958 Rasul Nagar estate was declared to be an urban area and the D.R.C., Gujranwala, passed an order that the petitioners who had abandoned rural land in India were not entitled to retain the land temporarily allotted to them in the estate and the said land was allotted to the Jammu & Kashmir refugees. This order gave rise to a series of appeals and revisions before the Rehabilitation Authorities. In the meanwhile, the rural claims of most of the petitioners were satisfied at places other than Rasul Nagar. The petitioners, inter alia continued to maintain that they were entitled to the satisfaction of their claims in the urban limits in Rasul Nagar and unless their claims were satisfied the Jammu & Kashmir refugees could not be allotted the land, and in this connection relied upon the provisions of Supplementary Scheme No. 2. Since this contention was not accepted by the Settlement Authorities, the petitioners filed a writ petition (W.P.
2. No. 2467-R of 1963) in the Lahore High Court to question the orders of the said authorities. The High Court, in the course of the proceedings, called fur a report from the Settlement Department. The Department intimated the Court that the rural claims of most of the. Petitioners hid been satisfied at places other than Rasul Nagar. Hence they could not claim any interest in the urban land of Rasul Nagar, where they originally held temporary allotments. According to the averments made in the report, only 8 out of 134 petitioners before the High Court, who were temporary allottees in the estate, had not been fully satisfied by the confirmation of the land elsewhere and an assurance was given that they would be made allotments in the urban limits of Rasul Nagar.
3. Before the High Court, the remaining petitioners submitted that although they bad been confirmed land elsewhere, nevertheless they were entitled to the confirmation of the land in Rasul Nagar, and relied upon certain instructions in this behalf. It was submitted that they may be allotted land in Rasul Nagar and necessary adjustments may be made in the land already allotted to them elsewhere. The learned Judge in the High Court bearing the writ petition did not accept this submission on the ground that after the land was confirmed in their names elsewhere, they ceased to be temporary allottees in Rasul Nagar and, therefore, had no preferential right to be confirmed in area there. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of with the following observations :---- "In the view of the matter I take, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Of the petitioners who are temporary allottees and whose claims have not been fully, satisfied, the Rehabilitation Authorities have undertaken to make allotments to them in pursuance of Memorandum No. 2586-63/4248-R(L), dated 'the 26th of June, 1963. In case the Settlement Authorities do not abide by their undertaking and refuse to give them allotments in pursuance thereof, any one of them can file a fresh petition."
4. Dissatisfied with the above decision only 1 out of 134 petitioners in the writ petition, namely, Wali Muhammad, preferred an appeal (L. P. A. No. 139(1' of 1966) against it. This appeal remained pending in the High Court for over eleven years. In the meanwhile, sometimes in 1977, petitioners 2 to 66 herein filed an application under Order 1, rule 1C(2), C. P. C. To be transposed as co-appellants in the above appeal. This application came up for hearing along with the main appeal. The learned Judges hearing the two matters held that so far as the original appellant was concerned, he had not been able to show any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. According to them the said order provided the appellant with the entire relief that could be granted under the law. As he had no grievance left, his appeal was found to crave no merit.
5. So far as the other petitioners were concerned, it was held that the submission made by them to be transposed as appellants was highly belated and no reason had been given for the delay. It was further observed that the appeal could be decided without impleading these persons, as they were neither necessary nor proper parties. In fact, the learned Single Judge had held that the writ petition as originally filed suffered from miss joinder of parties, causes of action and multi furiousness and the interests of each applicant being distinct and separate, they could not have joined together to file one petition, even at that time. It was further observed that in the application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. The applicants had not stated what right they had in the land in question. The assertion at the Bar, merely was that the applicants had got their rural claims settled elsewhere and that they wished to surrender the other allotments and get the land in their possession in lieu of that. The Court observed that the applicants had got their claims settled and had neither any locus standi to challenge the allotment made to them, nor a standing to maintain their possession on the land in dispute, therefore, it was not necessary in the interact of justice or useful to impleaded them as appellants. The application was, therefore, dismissed.
6. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that so far as Wali Muhammad the original appellant was concerned, he has, by now, been permanently allotted the land temporarily allotted to him. Thus, the original appellant has no grievance': ft to agitate.
7. As for the other petitioners, it has already been noted that they did not join Wali Muhammad in filing the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which was passed on 14-11-1966 until sometime in 1977. It has also been conceded that their claims have been satisfied by making allotments in their favour in the years 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1964. So fart as the submission that they wish to surrender the said allotments in order to retain their possession over the lands which were originally allotted to them in Rasul Nagar is concerned, we agree with the High Court that on the confirmation of land to them elsewhere, their right in the land allotted to them temporarily at Rasul Nagar has disappeared. Be that as it may, it was within the discretion of the High Court to transpose he said petitioners to the array of appellants, and this discretion was not exercised to their favour for good and proper reasons, and we find no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court.
8. The result is that no ground for interference exists. This petition must fail and is, therefore, hereby dismissed.