'Through this writ petition a direction is sought to the respondents to provide record of allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner and allotment of land against unsatisfied claim. A further prayer has been made for registration of a criminal case against Jalal-ud-Din, and three others (not party to this writ petition).
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had a verified claim for 8742 P.I.Us. 1931 units were satisfied in Tehsil Pakpattan while the balance 7811 P.I.Us. Were transferred to Mauza Nayake, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore but no allotment was made in the said Revenue Estate. It is averred that one Jalal- ud-Din, relative of the petitioner, got the said units transferred from Mauza Nayake to Mauza Bhala where land measuring 1495 Kanals, 19 Marlas was got allotted and confirmed by Jalal-ud-Din in 1964. According to the averments of the Writ Petition 5336 units were outstanding and it was not known as to where these units had gone. It is averred that land in Mauza Bhogri, Dholan, Kot Murad and Nayake of Tehsil Kasur and Mauza Dobli, Virke Nao and Bheer of Tehsil Chunian was allotted against the said outstanding claim. The petitioner has been trying to locate the record and has been making applications to the concerned authorities but to no avail. It was further averred that land measuring 1554 Kanals, 13 Marlas was allotted in Mauza Hather and land measuring 714 Kanals, 4 Marlas was allotted in Mauza Manjha in the name of the petitioner. It was asserted that Jalal-ul-Din and three others have illegally and fraudulently occupied the land allotted against the claim of the petitioner.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kasur, has submitted report and parawise comments. It has been explained that 7811 P.I.Us. Of the petitioner was entered at Khata No,210 of Village Bhala, Tehsil Kasur but were later taken over on Khata No,248 which has been misplaced and an inquiry in the matter is being conducted. Therefore, it could not be said as to how much units of the petitioner had been satisfied. However, according to the Revenue Record, the petitioner is owner of land measuring 1404 Kanals, 3 Marlas in village Bhala. It has further been reported that no land was allotted in favour of the petitioner in Village Bhogri, Dholan, Kot Murad and Nayake of Tehsil Kasur.
4. At the bar the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for a direction for the satisfaction of petitioners pending claim with the assertion that his unit was only partly satisfied.
5. The petitioner has approached this Court with enormous delay which has further complicated the issue. Land measuring 1404 Kanals and 3 Marlas already stands in the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Record while according to the averment of para. 5 of the writ petition, land measuring 1554 Kanals and 13 Marlas and 714 Kanals, 4 Marlas was allotted in his favour respectively in Mauzas Hathar and Majha which is said to be in illegal possession of Jalal-ud-Din and three others. Thus, land measuring 2764-4 already stands allotted to the petitioners as per his own showing and he has not even asserted the number of units consumed for allotment of 2764 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land. However, irrespective of the question whether any units of the petitioners are pending satisfaction the fact remains that first application was moved by the petitioner before the learned M.B.R. On 21-9-1982 long after the repeal of the settlement laws. A pending claim could be said to be "pending proceedings" within the meaning of the Evacuee Property and C Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (No,XIV of 1975), and, therefore, the direction being prayed for satisfaction of his outstanding claim, if any, cannot be issued.
6. As far as the prayer for registration of the case against Jalalud-Din and three others is concerned, even according to the averments of the writ petition the allotments were made in favour of the petitioner. It is not his case that aforesaid Jalal-ud-Din had got any allotment in their favour against the claim of the petitioner. He may, however, subject to all just and legal exceptions, have recourse to the remedy which may be available to him before a proper forum if he has any grievance against Jalal-ud-Din and others.
' For what has been stated above, no case is made out for interference. This writ petition is dismissed.