1975 PLP 489 (SCMR)

His son, Hukum Din, who was the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners, migrated to Pakistan but died a few days thereafter. The petitioners, who were all minors at that time, were allotted lands on tempor ary basis in Chak No. 1/JB District Lyallpur. Their paternal grand‑father, Jhanda son of Sawan, filed claim$ on their behalf. These were duly verified and lands in Killas Nos. 4, 5/1, 10/1, 15 and 25 of square No. 25 in the above‑mentioned Chak were allotted to them equivalent to 293 P. I. units out of the total verified claim of Mahando amounting to 411 P.I. units. Subsequently, on 11‑12‑1953, the mutation of inheritance of Mahando was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. Copies of R. L. II were also issued to them. During the consolidation proceedings, however, the petitioners were settled in Khasra Nos. 6/2, 7/1, 15, 16 and 25 of the same square and, in due course, they deposited the settlement dues as required by Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959. The heirs of Sarbuland, a pro‑deceased son of Mahando, it appears, also filed a claim form in respect of lands abandoned by Mahando to India and got confirmed lands equivalent to 167 P.I. units in Chak No. 208/J B, Tehsil Toba Tok Singh, Lyallpur. After this, on the 5th, July 1969, one, Faqiria son of Nathu, the predecessor win‑interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 7, filed a petition under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had secured the allotment by practis ing a fraud upon the settlement authorities, for, the sane Mahondo's claim lands had also been confirmed in favour of tome other persons in Tehsil Tuba Tek Singh. The Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted this application and passed an order on the 15th December 1969, directing the cancellation of lands equivalent to 164 p. I. units from the names of the petitioners. The petitioners, on the 24th January 1970, filed a suit to challenge the validity of the above order in the Court of a Civil judge in Lyallpur. This suit is being contested by respondents Nos. 4 to 7, the heirs of Faqiria on the plea that the civil Court leas no jurisdiction. The suit is, however, still pending and no evidence has yet been. recorded therein. In the meantime, on the failure of the petitioners to exercise the choice given to them .for surrendering excess land, the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, Lyallpur, on the 5th June, 1972, withdrew Killas Nos. 1 6 and 25 from their allotments. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order and the Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the maintenance of status quo The respondents Nos. 4 to 7 went up in revision before the Settlement Commissioner to challenge the order of cancellation of only 164 P. I. units and also prayed that whatever land is cancelled from the allotment of the petitioners be allotted to them. The Settlement Commissioner has confirmed Killas Nos. 16 and 25 of square No. 25 in favour of the said respondents by his order of the 9th August, 1972. It was only after this that the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court but it has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, mainly on the ground of delay and acquiescence. The writ petition filed on the 19th December 1972, to challenge the order of the 15th December 1969, was held to be barred on the ground of lathes. The contention of the petitioners that the time they had spent in pursuing their suit filed on the 24th January 1970, should be taken into account was rejected following several decisions of this Court on the ground that the suit was misconceived being clearly barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Apart from this the petitioners were also held to have acquiesced in the order of the Settlement Commissioner, because, they had, in response to his order directing them to make their choice, expressed their inability to do so on account of changes in the numbers of the fields as a result of the consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contends that their writ petition ought not to have been rejected on such technical grounds, as they were diligently pursuing some remedy, even though the proceedings taken by them might ultimately turn out to be misconceived. It seems to us, however, that apart from the ground of delay, there is another hurdle in the way of the petitioners. They had already chosen their remedy and gone to the civil Court to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. That suit is still pending. They could not, therefore, be allowed to agitate the same matter concurrently in another forum, namely ; the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. On merits also we see no reason to interfere. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had made a detailed calculation of the entitlement of the petitioners and it is now conceded on behalf of the petitioners that if the heirs of Sarbuland also became the heirs of Mahando then they would not be entitled to the entire inheritance of Mahando. It is also conceded by their learned counsel that their entitlement would in such event come to 130 units only and this is exactly what they had got after the cancellation of 164 P. I. units. It seems to us, therefore, that substantial justice has been done and the High Court was, in the circumstances, justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.