GEHNA Versus HAMEEDANI

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑ ‑This petition has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against the judgment of‑ the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19th May, 1981 The background is that there is a dispute between the parties over a piece of land measuring 39 kanals situate in District Sheikhupura. A portion of it was earlier proposed in favour of the petitioners but it was not confirmed because the petitioners had taken away their claim to Faisalabad. Consequently the disputed land was confirmed in favour of Nur Muhammad on 10th May, 1969 and after his death his daughter Mst.Hameedan respondent is in possession of it. The petitioners started litigation with the respondent which continued so much so that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner found her better entitled to the allotment as compared to the petitioners on the ground that her predecessor‑in‑interest namely Nur Muhammad was temporary allottee of the said land earlier. This order was set aside on appeal by the petitioners on the ground that the land in question was held under temporary allotment by them. Thereafter the revision petition of the respondent was dismissed on the ground that she could not support her claim to the effect that her father was earlier temporary allottee of the said land. Aggrieved by these two orders of the Settlement Authorities, the respondent challenged them by way of a writ petition which was accepted on the ground that according to the record none of the parties was temporary allottee of the disputed land. However both the parties were allottees of same land and the respondent was given preference because the allotment in favour of her father was earlier than that made in favour of the present petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us argued that the Settlement Authorities had arrived at the finding of fact to the effect that the petitioners were earlier temporary 91lottees and that in that view of the matter the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore was not entitled to interfere in the exercise of his writ jurisdiction; but this argument had been raised before the learned Single Judge and he has attended to it properly by holding that both the Settlement Courts which decided against the respondent had misread the record. The respondent had been undisputedly the earlier allottee of the estate and had rightly been confirmed the disputed land.

3. After hearing the learned counsel we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

4. M.I./G‑122/S Petition dismissed.