1976 PLP 489 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑ This petition for leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 28th of November 1973, whereby a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioners, in respect of agricultural land situate in village Kotli Bajwa, Tehsil Lodhran in the Multan District, was summarily dismissed. The land in dispute was purchased by the present petitioners, or their predecessor‑ in‑interest, 'from one Allah Ditta. who had obtained the same by allotment against the verified claim of his alleged father Karim Bakhsh, It appears that two other claims had also been filed in respect of the holding of deceased Karim Bakhsh by Khkir Din and Manna in the districts of Sargodha and Jhang respectively. On these multiple allotments evicting to the knowledge of the Enforcement Directorate, tae matter was examined by a learned Settlement Commissioner, exercising delegated power; of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 13 of the Displaced Persons (land Settlement.) Act. He came to the conclusion that the allotments obtained by Allah Ditta and Khair Din In Multan and Sargodha Districts be cancelled, whereas the allotment obtained in Jhang District by Manna etc. be allowed to stand. This order was challenled by the petitioners by filling a Settlement Revision in the high Court. Where upon the matter was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner list fresh decision after allowing the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. On remand, the case was examined by a learned Additional Settlement Commissioner who held that Allah Ditta, the vendor of the extent petitioners, was, not the son of Karim Bakhah, but was the son of his wife Mst. Waziran from a previous husband, and therefore, not at entitled to inherit from Karim Bakhsh. On this view of the matter, the) allotment obtained by Allah Ditta in village Kotli Bajwa was again ordered to be cancelled. The petitioners filed an appeal which was rejected by a. learned Settlement Commissioner. The finding, recorded by the Settlement authorities regarding the relationship of Allah Ditta with the last male owner of the property, namely, Karim Bakhsh, was not seriously contested before the High Court, but it was contended that Mst. Waziran the widow of Karim Bakhsh, and. his daughter Mst. Zainab Bibi, having died. Allah Ditta was entitled to inherit 5/8 share out of the land verified against the claim of Karim Bakhsh, and, therefore, to that extent the vendees should have been allowed to retain the land in dispute. This contention was repelled by the High Court on the ground that in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, it was not to embark upon fresh enquiries, but was merely to consider the legality of the order challenged before it. As nothing could be urged against the legality of the last order made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the writ petition was dismissed in limine. It is submitted by Mr. A. R. Shaukat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Settlement authorities have misread the evidence in coming to the conclusion that the vendor Allah Ditta was not the real son of Karim Bakhah but only a Pichhlug from the previous marriage of Mst. Waziran and that in any case the vendees should have been protected as they were bona fide purchasers for consideration. There is no merit is these submissions. The finding that Allah Ditta was not a son of Karim Bakhsh is a finding of fact, arrived at by the Settlement authorities after considering the evidence available to them. No misreading of such evidence was shown in the High Court, where in fact this finding was not seriously contested. It is not, therefore, open to the petitioner to reagitate this question in the present proceedings. As to the argument that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value, it is clear that no protection be afforded to them when it has been found that their vendor had no right, title or interest in the demised property. The question of inheritance by Allah Ditta of the property to his mother and his sister has obviously to be decided in separate proceedings, and it may be open to the petitioners to make a claim against Allah Ditta in respect of the lands which he may so inherit, but that question did no arise out of the order of the Settlement authorities which was brought under challenge in the High Court. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.