1981 PLP 1240(2) (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-The petitioners' claim bad been initially verified for 51 Bighas and 12 Biswas and equivalent land had been allotted to him in Chak Achan on 4-1-1957. Muhammad Saleem petitioner later filed an Uzardari urging that the land was less than that allotted to the brothers of his late father Fazal Muhammad although the latter had equal share with them in the land left behind in India. It was found that land belonging to said Fazal Muhammad in Khewat No. 101 (Shamlat Deh) was by mistake put in the entitlement of one Mst. Hasso. The Uzardari was thereupon accepted by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, on 17-5-1960 and a revised entitlement was issued for 331 Bighas and 14 Biswas which was made good by allotment of corresponding area deducted from the land of Mst. Hasse's heirs but at the instance of the latter the matter was reviewed and the petitioners were restored to their original entitlement vide order dated 16-9-1967. The petitioners agitated the matter by bringing Writ Petition No. 1643 of 1967 but the same was dismissed on 5-2-1975 and their Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 211 of 1975 was likewise rejected on 18-11-1975 by the Supreme Court.

2. However, an area measuring 291 Bighas and 2 Biswas described as Ghair Mumkin Pahar appears to have been added against Khewat No. 12 which the Officer on Special Duty found to have been done by the petitioners in collusion with the officials of the Record Office. He, therefore, cancelled the addition by his order dated 9-8-1979. This brought the petitioners again before the High Court through Writ Petition No. 466-R of 1979. During the hearing of the petition, the petitioners' counsel, with the permission of the Court, inspected the record in the Central Record Office and found some tempering having been made in the Jamabandi. He, therefore, conceded before the High Court that he could not confidently say that the Officer on Special Duty's order dated 9-8-1979 had been passed without any justification but submitted that the order was a mere report and could not be clothed with any finality. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition in limine on 7-10-1979 upon the view that the question of entitlement of the petitioners had already been finally decided in the previous round which had gone up to the Supreme Court and that as the new entry was found to have been collusively made in favour of the petitioners, there was no justification for entertaining the petition.

3. It has been urged before us that in the earlier round the petitioners' entitlement had been examined on the basis of entry in Khewat No. 101 and not of Khewat No. 12 and as such the petitioners' case could not be said to have teen concluded in the earlier round. It is submitted that in fact the petitioners had from the very beginning been claiming more entitlement and as such the decisions in the earlier round had not clinched the matter. Further, that the question of entitlement could be decided only by the Settlement Authority and not by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office.

4. We have considered the matter but are inclined to the view that if the petitioner's case was that their entitlement was more than what had. be earlier decided, they could have sought a review of the earlier orders up to the discovery of fresh fact, if any. No such recourse having been taken the decisions have become final and the question cannot now be reopened. The petition for special leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.