1975 PLP 173 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.

‑Mohammad Bashir petitioner is a right- holder having a verified claim of agricultural land abandoned by him in India. Most of his units still remain unsatisfied. Respondents obtained confirmed allotments of land in village KotSohnda, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura which on revivification was found to be excess. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sheikhupura directed the cancellation of the land found to be in excess of their entitlement vide order dated 13‑1‑

59. In appeal the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, directed that cancel lation of excess area should be deferred till such time as respondents' entitlement was finally determined after comparison of the Revenue Record at the border with the Indian Authorities. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in revision, by the present petitioner. During the pendency of the comparison at the border the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide his order dated 15‑3‑1963 again directed the cancellation of the excess area. This order was successfully challenged by the respondents. In the meantime however the petitioner appears to have obtained in his favour an allotment order dated 8‑12‑1963 pertaining to a part of the land in occupation of the respondents. It was successfully challenged by them before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 25‑1‑1964 directed maintenance of status quo. This was supplemented by another order dated 22‑3‑1965 whereby the respondents' allotment was kept in‑tact and they were allowed to retain the entire area. In order to assail this order the petitioner unsuccessfully invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which dismissed his Writ Petition No. 207/R of 1966 vide judgment dated 11‑1‑1974 against which the petition for special leave to appeal has now been moved before us. Having heard the learned counsel we are satisfied that the petition must fail on more than one ground. The learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the petition on the grounds firstly, that the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1‑101960 dismissing the petitioner's revision against the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner's dated 8‑9‑1959 was never challenged by him and as such attained finality. It was rightly observed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner that the petitioner being a non‑allottee of the disputed land had no locus standi. Secondly the order dated 8‑12‑1963 which formed the sheet‑anchor of the petitioner's case purporting to show an allotment of the disputed land in his favour made no reference whatsoever to the cancellation of the land from the name of the respondents which was a condition precedent c for the availability of the land. There could be no question of fresh allot ment of the land in favour of the petitioner without a previous order of its cancellation from the name of the respondents which is simply non existent. Again this order was passed behind the back of the respondents. Thirdly the dispute about the entitlement of the respondents was exclusively based on an allegedly erroneous classification of the land, the correctness of the area claimed as abandoned by them having remained unchallenged. Having heard the learned counsel we are convinced that these were valid grounds whose soundness cannot be challenged on the factual or legal plane. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality justi fying the interference of this Court. The petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.