1982 PLP 959 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The land in dispute which is described more fully in the petition was proposed jointly in the names of the petitioner and the respondents on 13‑8‑1962 and was accordingly confirmed on 13‑9‑1962. It appears that about seven years thereafter the present petitioner now represented by his legal representatives filed an appeal on 17‑3-1969,submitting that instead of making a joint transfer to him alongwith others, the land in dispute should be exclusively given to him inasmuch as though earlier he had a joint claim with the respondents, he has later on separated from them and got his claim independently verified. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 14‑6‑1969 as hopelessly time‑barred. However, a revision filed by the petitioner brought fruit and was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 23‑7‑1969, but his order was set aside in a constitutional petition filed by the respondents which was allowed by the High Court on 13‑3‑1975. The petitioner filed review petition but without any success as the same was dismissed 1‑4‑1975. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for leave to appeal against both the orders, namely, dated 13‑3‑1975 and 1‑4‑1975.

2. As regards the order dated 1‑4‑1975 whereby the review of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court, it is conceded by the learned counsel that he was unable to point out any suitable ground for review. In that view of the matter the order 1‑4‑1975 suffers from no infirmity and the petition against the aforesaid is dismissed hereby.

3. As regards the main order dated 13‑3‑1975 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the aforesaid Court was not justified in accepting the same inasmuch as the petitioner had now an exclusive and independent claim of his own and therefore the transfer to him should also be made as independent and separate. He further submits that his client had been allottee of this very land, therefore, from this point of view as well his entitlement should have been given separately to him. The contentions raised have no merit. It is conceded that earlier the claim of the petitioner was joint with the respondents. It is also conceded that on 13‑8‑1962 and 13‑9‑1952 when the proposal and confirmation was made jointly to him and the respondents he was, present and raised no objection thereto. Later on if the petitioner go his claim separated that is his own doing which would not render the earlier confirmation illegal in any manner and on that basis he cannot find fault with the orders which were validly passed in the year 1962 with the consent the petitioner himself.

4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.