1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN,this common judgment weintend to dispose of above three petitions which are directed against the judgment dated 8-8-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing Regular Second Appeal No,161 of 1987 and Civil Revisions Nos.1556 and 1557 of 1987 filed by the petitioners.
2. ' This case has got a chequered history. The dispute involved in it pertains to Property No,SW-108- R/4, Rashid Road, Lahore, commonly known as Bungalow No,4. This was allotted to the petitioners as well as to Abdul Rashid Khan and Sadiq Ali etc. Against their respective CH Forms by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Centre-II, Lahore, vide his order dated 1-1-1960. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner Mst. Akhtari Begum as well as Abdul Rashid Khan filed two separate appeals which were dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 8-6-1960. The revision petition filed against the said order was accepted on 10-12-1960. This revision order was assailed before the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,1112-R of 1962, which was accepted vide an order dated 10-12-1965 and the case was remitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding the same afresh.
3. ' Subsequent to the remand, the matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the revision petition on 27-6-1973. This was again challenged before the High Court through Writ Petition No,561/R of 1973, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 15-10-1975 whereby the earlier order passed on 1-1-1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was restored.
4. ' Abdul Rashid Khan filed Civil Petition No,1122 of 1975 before this Court which was dismissed on 15- 12-1979. Civil Review Petition No,6-L of 1980 was also dismissed by this Court on 14-12-1981.
5. ' Thereafter, some of the parties filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for demarcation of the property and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide Ns order dated 2- 10-1976 carried out the demarcation. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with this demarcation, filed.
6. Writ Petition No,1584-R of 1976 which was accepted vide order dated 7-6-1977 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore HighCourt and the demarcation order undertaken by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was set aside.
7. ' After exhausting the remedies before the Settlement Authorities, three suits were filed by the parties i.e, suits for possession, declaration and partition of the property in dispute. All the three suits were consolidated and the learned Civil Judge through his judgment dated 21-2-1987 decreed the suits for possession and declaration while he dismissed the suit for partition filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners filed three separate appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment dated 11-7-1987. Regular Second Appeal No,161 of 1987 and Civil Revisions Nos.1556 and 1557 of 1987 were preferred by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, which were accepted through a consolidated judgment .Dated 23-6-1994 whereby the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below were set aside and the suit filed by Mst. Iqbal Begum was also dismissed.
8. ' The matter does not end here. The parties filed two Direct Appeals Nos.636 and 637 of 1994 in this Court as a matter of right under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereas two Civil Appeals Nos.966 and 967 of 1996 were filed with leave of this Court. This Court through its judgment dated 26-2-1997 allowed the same and set aside the judgment of the High Court and the case was remitted to the High Court to decide the aforesaid R.S.A. And two civil revisions afresh in the terms highlighted by this Court whereby Civil Review Petition No,6-L of 1980 was dismissed on 14-12-1981.
9. ' The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court took up all these matters and through a consolidated judgment dated 8-8-2001 dismissed the R.S.A. And both the civil revisions. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
10. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with their assistance. The only point which has been agitated by the petitioners throughout all this period is only to the extent of area in possession of the respective parties on the basis of their CH Forms. An argument has been advanced by them that the area has not A been given to the parties in accordance with their extent of possession. We have noticed that all the parties obtained allotment orders of the respective portions in their possession as far back as in the year 1960. While dismissing the Civil Petition No,1122 of 1975 by this Court, it was observed that the disputed property had been partitioned with the consent of all the occupants. Thereafter, they raised walls around their respective portions and ever since are living therein. The petitioners have unnecessarily embroiled the parties in this uncalled for litigation simply on the issue of extent of their possession which was settled as far back as in the year 1960. We fail to understand how this possession, which was effected through consent of all the occupants, could now be disturbed after more than four decades. As already stated the parties after securing allotment orders raised respective walls around their units. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court. We ate constrained to observe that there must be an end to this uncalled for litigation going on between the parties for the last more than forty years. It has not only consumed valuable time of the Courts but has also subjected the other side to a lot of expense.
11. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, all the above three petitions being without any merit are dismissed and .