YUSAF ALI KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑ This petition is from the orders of the Lahore High . Court dismissing the petitioner's Constitution Petition and an application for review of the order passed in the Constitution Petition.

2. It appears that the petitioner was allloted the disputed lard by way of subsistence pending the verification of his claim. It is claimed that the petitioner apprehended transfer of the land during the pendency of the verification proceedings and he accordingly asked that the land be reserved in his name until his claim was verified. He has claimed further that the land was reserved for the petitioner. Nevertheless the land was allotted to respondent No.1, Muhammad Ali, on the 2nd of November, 1963. The petitioner preferred an appeal and revision from his order of allotment, but they were both dismissed. The last order of dismissal was on the 14th of July. 1973. The petitioner then approa0hed the High Court on the 10th of August, 1973, and it was dismissed by an order dated the 26th of July 1973. The petitioner applied for review of the, order dated the 26th of July, 1973, and it was dismissed on the 20th of August, 1973.

3. In the writ petition only two contentions were raised :‑

(i) That the land had been reserved in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, it was not available for allotment to respondent No. 1; and

(ii) That the petitioner was not heard before the allotment was made to the respondent.

4. Both these contentions were repelled by the High Court, the first on the ground that no vaild order by a compete it authority was produced to show that the land had been reserved for the petitioner, and, the second, on the ground that the disputed land had been transferred to the respondent and it became vested in him and inasmuch that the petitioner had no vested right the property, he was not required to be beard.

5. The application for review was dismissed on the ground that the document, namely, the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner reserving the lard in favour of the petitioner was suspicious and it did not impress the Court. This order was produced for the first time with the application for review. It was further observed that the order, of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner is dated the 19th of August, 1959, and it should have been produced alongwith the writ petition if it was genuine.

6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the two aforesaid impugned orders of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. Petition dismissed.