1990 PLP 335 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 6th November, 1985 whereby writ petition riled by the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that land measuring 40 Kanals situate in Mouza Bahawalnagar was temporarily allotted to one Mst. Jeena. Later on it was allotted and confirmed in favour of one Nasir Din. The present petitioner challenged the confirmation in favour of Nasir Din and his appeal was accepted by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. Subsequently the revision of Nasir Din was rejected. At the same time Mst. Jeena also .filed an appeal against the order of confirmation in favour of Nasir Din but this was rejected. Thereafter she filed revision petition in which she also impleaded the present petitioner as one of the respondents. However her revision petition was accepted on the ground that if she was found entitled to the allotment of the area the same should be made in her favor opt of the land temporarily allotted to her and that if the land was found in excess of the entitlement then the same should be allotted to the petitioner. The Settlement authority did not find her entitled and eventually the land was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter Mst. Sharifan respondent daughter of Mst. Jeena and one Gujjar appealed against the aforesaid order but their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. On the revision filed by Mst. Sharifan respondent etc. the Settlement Commissioner remanded the case for fresh decision. On remand the Additional Settlement Commissioner held Mst. Sharifan respondent entitled to the allotment of the land in dispute. His order was challenged in revision by the petitioner which was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the orders of the Settlement authorities by way of a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court and the case was remanded to the notified officer for fresh decision. The terms of remand, in the light of which the fresh decision was to be made, laid down by the High Court, are enumerated at pages 15 and 16 of the paper book and are reproduced in the impugned judgment. After hearing the parties the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision of the petitioner and decided in favour of Mst. Sharifan respondent. Thereupon the petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ petition which as stated above has been dismissed and hence the present petition. Learned counsel before us argued that the Settlement Commissioner did not pass the order in favour of Mst. Sharifan respondent in accordance with the terms of remand. This argument was also raised before the High Court. It has been observed after the perusal of the record by the learned Judge that Mst. Sharifan respondent was not allotted any other land except the disputed land which was 40 Kanals out of the temporary allotment of land and thus she was correctly found by the Settlement authority to have superior right for allotment of the land in dispute than the petitioner. The findings of fact of the learned Judge are that there was substantial compliance of the terms of remand and no objection can be taken to the order of the Settlement Commissioner. Since the findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioner, no case is made out for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1039/S Petition dismissed.