KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The land in dispute was confirmed in the name of Dulla son of Noora (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 4 herein), However, an area measuring 19 kanals from the allotment of the allottee aforesaid was cancelled by an ex parte order dated 1-12-1965, where --after it was allotted to respondents 5 to 10 on 29-12-1965 in different lots. ,
2. On coming to know of the aforesaid development the respondents concerned filed an application pleading that the cancellation of land from their name was illegal and through the Tehsildar put up a report in their favour but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected their application on 11-1-1973. They filed appeals/revisions, which were accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-12-1973, who held that the cancellation of land from the name of 'Dulla son of Noora was illegal and had been brought about in a clandestine and ex parte manner at the instance of the then Patwari who put up a Wrong note regarding the relevant "measure" of land namely whether it was a "katcha bigha" or a "pucca bigha".
3 At that juncture the present petitioners filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 6-R/74 but without any success as it was dismissed by the High Court on 2-7-1979. The petitioners have now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders to this Court.
4. Learned counsel argued that the respondents concerned in the instant case had moved in the matter after a great delay and laches their part and in the circumstances the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner should not have restored the original land to them which had in the meantime been procured by his clients. The contention has no merit. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner duly attended to this aspect of the case and so did the High Court who held that the delay or laches on the part of the respondents stood duly explained. It was further held that as the basic order dated 1-12-1965 was an unjustified an illegal ex parte order and was based on incorrect report of the Patwari, therefore, there was no justification to deprive the respondents of their well-deserved genuine entitlement. It may be pointed out that as regard the entitlement of the respondents no exception has been taken before us and the only emphasis laid was on the point of delay or laches. In our opinion when substantial justice has been done and land has been restored to o bestowed on the original rightful claimant(s), we feel no justification to grant leave to appeal against such a fair and just order.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.