' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This petition calls in question a judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-2-2000 passed in Civil Revision No, 271 of 1987 whereby the appellate judgment dated 18-12-1986 allowing the appeal and consequently dismissing the civil suit decreed through a judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 3-4-1982, was maintained by the High Court.
2. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, namely, Muhammad Khan was allotted 1200 Kanals of land on 28-5-1953 in Mauza Rakh Mankera of Tehsil Bhakkar under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme of 1952. The allotment appears to have been cancelled for noncompliance of the terms and conditions of the grant which land, was however, re-allotted to him on 14-4-1967 allegedly in view of a judgment delivered by the High Court in similar cases. The allotment was once again cancelled on 8-7-1967 but was again restored to the said Khan Muhammad on 14-9- 1976 under the orders of the Minister for Revenue and under the orders dated 21-9-1976 of the Board of Revenue.
3. On promulgation of Martial Law Order No,14 of 1977 on 5-7-1977, the case of restoration of the grant of the land in question to the said Khan Muhammad was examined by the Board of Revenue and the said grant was cancelled through an order dated 7-3-1979 passed by the said Board. The review petitions filed by the allottee before the Martial Law Administrator and the Governor were dismissed on 22-3-1980 and 13-3-1980 respectively whereafter he filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge at Bhakkar seeking only a permanent injunction that the Thal Development Authority be permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the land in question as an allottee thereof. This suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff through a judgment of the said learned Civil Judge, dated 3-4-1982 but on an appeal filed by the Thal Development Authority, the learned District Judge of Bhakkar through his judgment, dated 18-12-1986 set aside the findings of the learned trial Court and dismissed the said suit. The revision filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners before the Lahore High Court was dismissed as has been, mentioned above, through the judgment now impugned before us.
4. The reasons which had weighed with the learned Judge in Chambers for dismissing the revision petition in question are reproduced below:--- "(11) The order passed under Martial Law Order No,14 would be immune from being challenged unless it was demonstrated that the said order was mala fide or coram non judice. Unfortunately, no relief was claimed qua the order, dated 7-3-1979 and straight away an injunction was claimed.
According to a finding in the order, dated 7-3-1979 the lot was restored under the order of the Minister. It was, therefore, clearly hit by the Martial Law Order No,14. Since it could not be directly challenged, no collateral attack was permissible.
(12) As far as the contention of the learned counsel that allotment made during the period from 1- 2-1972 to 4-7-1977 only could be examined is concerned, it has no merit in view of the fact that the definition of allotment according to Martial Law Order No,14 included restoration of a resumed lot. It is correct that initially lot was restored on the basis of the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ petition No,610 of 1958 but it was again resumed and thereafter it was restored. This order of restoration of the lot has not been produced to demonstrate that the restoration of the lot was on merits and not under the direction of Minister for Revenue."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length who has not been able to show any illegality in the revisional judgment of the Lahore High Court.
6. In this view of the matter this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.