' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave is sought against the judgment dated 2-10-2001 vide which a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal of the respondent/ plaintiffs and restored the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 12-11-1987.
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioner/defendants for possession of suit property located in Mohallah Munshiwala Block (sic) Jhang City bearing No,76/V/I more particularly described in para 2 of the plaint. It was averred that the property was allotted to one Mana son of Bojha on 28-6-1992 by the Settlement Department and PTD had since been issued in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs who are legal heirs of the said Mana; that at the time of transfer, the property was in possession of one Nizam Din who delivered the possession to them; that after obtaining the possession they raised construction; that since there was no permanent residence; petitioners/defendants took forcible possession four years back which necessitated filing of the suit. The learned trial Court framed 11 issues and on the basis of its finding primarily on issue No,10, decreed the suit. It was however reversed in appeal by the Additional District Judge vide the judgment dated 11-4-1989 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner/ defendants are bona fide purchasers from one Habibullah respondent No,4. While reversing the finding on issue No,10, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the allotments made in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs were illegal and void because the suit-land was agricultural in nature and could not have been allotted under the relevant scheme which was relatable only to the urban area., In reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment discussed every piece of evidence and came to the conclusion that the afore-referred finding of the learned Additional District Judge qua the nature of the suit property was against the record inasmuch as the evidence led clearly established that the property fell within the municipal limits and was therefore, urban in nature.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, admitted that he is a purchaser from someone who claimed adverse possession. He added that the petitioners does not deny the allotment made in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by the Settlement Department but their claim is primarily based on the assertion that the determination of specific Khasra numbers which were allotted to the respondents/plaintiffs required demarcation by the competent authority. He further prayed that the Revenue Authorities be directed to carry out the demarcation proceedings.
4. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the impugned judgment.
5. The finding of the learned High Court that the suit property fell within the municipal limit and that it has rightly been allotted to the respondents/plaintiffs is borne out from the evidence led to which reference has been made by the learned High Court in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment.
The said finding, therefore, is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. So far as petitioners' prayer for issuing a direction to Revenue Authorities for demarcation is concerned, the same at this stage is not tenable and petitioners may if so advised, take appropriate proceedings in the Revenue Hierarchy.
6. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any c substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and .