KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Begum Sarwar Khatoon, respondent had received certain land in excess of her entitlement. Later on she surren--dered the excess area and exercising a choice retained the precise area which is presently in dispute and which is described more fully in the petition.
2. It appears that the present petitioners (Allah Yar and others) also laid claim to have that area but having failed at the departmental level they filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 6596 of 1980 which was dismissed by the High Court on 17-6-1980, on the ground that the matter was concluded by a previous judgment of that Court passed on 10-4-1974 in Writ Petition No. 512/74. It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid writ petition the High Court had accepted the claim of the respondent to surrender and retain the requisite area according to her choice.
3. The petitioners have come up in a petition for leave to appeal to challenge the order of the High Court dated 17-6-1980, whereby his present Writ Petition No. 6569/80 has been dismissed. Learned counsel has argued that his clients had a better right to obtain the land in dispute and that the respondent had no right to exercise any choice in this respect. The conten--tion has no merit. It is well known that in the matter of retention and surrender of excess land, the allottee concerned has a right to exercise a choice, and the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court on that basis suffers from no infirmity.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.