1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who is in cultivating possession of Government land seeks leave to appal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 4-5-1982 whereby the grant of temporary injunction was refused to him pending his civil suit against the offer of this land on tender to the highest bidder.
2. Muhammad A.I was the tenant of the disputed land in Chak No. 400/1. B. District Toba Tek Singh. He was found ineligible to acquire proprietary rights in the same. The petitioner claims to have been in actual cultivating possession of this land. On being found ineligible for the conferment of proprietary rights this land was offered for temporary cultivation on tender to the highest bidder.
3. The petitioner considers himself entitled to the allotment under instructions of the Board of Revenue dated 3rd May, 1979, para. 13. He has been refused the allotment. Hence he instituted a civil suit and, sought a temporary injunction pending the decision of the suit restraining the Collector from giving it on tender. It was refused by the Civil Judge finding no prima facie case in his favour. The same view was affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instructions of the Board of Revenue created a right of which he could not be denied.. According to him he satisfied all the conditions with regard to the grant of this land.
5. We find that the petitioner has been denied the tenancy as well as the interim relief on the ground that he is not eligible because he already holds under different scheme which is also of permanent nature 106 kanals 16 marlas of land in Chak 405/1. B. The learned counsel states that this finding is based on some erroneous assumption and is not correct. This Court will not be is a position even for purposes of interim relief to determine a question of fact tentatively decided against him by the three Courts by reference to the record as made available by the parties. It will be open to the petitioner to correct the facts and the sooner he does it to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the better for him. Even otherwise we find that the instructions do not contain any command to the allotting authority to make allotments in favour of sub tenants. It is enabling power in the domain of discretion and it is for the authority to be satisfied with the eligibility of the claimant. We do not find that for the purposes of interim relief the case of the petitioner requires any further examination. Leave to appeal is refused.