1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner who is a retired Sub-Assistant Surgeon, seeks review of an order of this Court, dated 21st of March, 1981 whereby his petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-12-1975 was affirmed.
2. ' The main ground on which review is sought is that certain conclusions adverse to the petitioner's conduct have been adverted to and the allotment obtained by him has been held to be proportionately for the benefit of his sister also to the extent of her entitlement in the property of their father Imamuddin.
3. ' It is contended that the petitioner being a civil servant posted in the district was accommodated in Gujranwala unlike his brother who was to take away his verified claim to Bahawalpur for settlement. Unless his sister Nawab Begum was entitled to such a special treatment, her share could not be allowed in the land allotted to the petitioner, particularly when residue of the claim still remained which could completely satisfy elsewhere her entitlement.
4. ' There had been a mistake in working out the shares of the heirs of Imamuddin inasmuch as Nawab Begum was excluded altogether. The High Court observed as follows-- "Before this re-attestation the petitioner was claiming entitlement to the extent of 758 units and he had also secured allotment to that extent on Khatas No, 87 and 177/87. The area in Khata No, 177/87 was no doubt later on cancelled, but the cancellation was not for the reason of any reduction in the entitlement of the petitioner by re-attestation of the mutation. It was cancelled because the area allotted to the petitioner was not allotable. It was admitted by the petitioner that the entitlement of his brother is being proportionately shared by respondents No. 1 to 4. If the area allotted to the petitioner in Khata No,177 had not been cancelled, he could not have raised the present objection."
5. The subsequent cancellation of the allotment, the availability of the residue claim yet to be settled and the special position enjoyed by the petitioner in Gujranwala district cannot, in the background of such state of facts, be allowed to prevail and were not allowed to prevail.
6. ' We do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed.