1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The facts, according to the petitioner, are that he was allotted land in dispute, comprising of four squares, by the The Development Authority in 1952, but later on, the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh not only cancelled his allotment and handed over the land to the Military Authorities, by the order dated 10-1-1978, but also ordered him to pay penalty at 40 times the land revenue. Petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 4789 of 1978, before the Lahore High Court which is said to be yet awaiting final decision.
2. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh handed over possession of the land and the crop standing thereon to Col. Muhammad Ilyas, respon--dent 1, by the order dated 12-7-1978, and the petitioner therefore filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 1978 in the aforesaid Writ Petition, praying for the interim relief that he should not be dispossessed from the land. The application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by the order dated 12-12-1978 for the reason that the petitioner should have availed of the departmental remedies available to him and that he "should apply to the relevant authorities that instead of giving the property on superdari to persons who may not have so much interest as the petitioner, they might as well release the crops on the petitioner's furnishing full security for the mesne profits, and be allowed to remain in possession during the pendency of the writ petition on furnishing full security".
3. According to the petitioner, be approached the Deputy Commissioner for relief in terms of the observations made by the High Court, but his request was rejected, and in the circumstances be approached the High Court, again, for relief in Writ Petition No. 10070 of 1978. Learned Single Judge in the High Court who dealt with the case dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commis--sioner on 12-12-1978 and the final order on appeal was passed by the Addi--tio pal Commissioner (Revenue), Multan on 7-7-1979, yet the petitioner had not cared to file the writ petition until after more than one year on 25-9-1980, and the writ petition therefore suffered from laches and "on the face of it, the petition has no merit".
4. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
5. Since the petitioner's grievance is directed against the order of handing over of land in dispute on superdari to respondent 1, which has been passed in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Revenue Authorities, and it has not shown that the discretion has been exercised in an illegal manner, there was hardly any scope for interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Realizing this position, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he would be satisfied if a clarification is made by this Court that the petitioner may apply for interim relief in the proceedings of the writ petition pending in the High Court. No clarification in this behalf is necessary, for, if the law permits such relief it is open to the petitioner to avail of the remedy, if he so chooses.
6. With these observations the petition is otherwise dismissed in limine.