' This is a petition under Article 9 of the P. C.
0. 1981, whereby Murid Kazim and seven others want this Court to declare orders, dated 11th July, 1979, 17th February, 1980, 9th October, 1980 and 13th May, 1982, passed by the respondents 3, 2 and 1, respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition as stated' by the learned counsel are that the petitioners are owners in Mauza Karor Thal Kalan, Mauza Mauj Garh, Mauza Karor Thal Jhandi and Mauza Kunal Thal Kalan whereas respondents 4 to 7 are vendees from the local owners in Mauza Kunal Thal Kalan. On 11th July, 1979 the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Leiah, respondent No, 3 adjusted the land in possession of the petitioners situated in Mauza Kotla Qazi Thal to respondents 4 to 7. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, respondent No,
1. Feeling not satisfied the petitioners moved a review application which too was dismissed, on 13th May, 1982. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel contends that the land situated in Mauza Kotla Qazi Thal which was in possession of the petitioner was adjusted in favour of respondents 4 to 7 against the petitioners' right of return which they have in Mauza Kunal Thal Kalan, that the relevant record was not considered by respondents I to 3-Inasmuch as Annexure 'A' indicates that the petitioners have unsatisfied right of return in Mauza Karor Thal Jhandi, Mauza Karor Thal Kalan, Mauza Mauj Garh and Mauza Kunal Thai Kalan and that the petitioners have been condemned unheard by respondent No, 3.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me I find that respondent No, 3 was legally competent to adjust the land to respondents 4 to 7 and as for the entitlement of the petitioners it has been observed by the Additional Commissioner that "the Patwari Helga as well as the State representative have filed their written statements, reports according to which the appellants have no right of return left in village Kotla Qazi Thal. This being the position, the appellants have already been adjusted the property according to their entitlement. Mere possessi an of some property would not be sufficient to confer title for adjustment. Thus, the appeal having no force, is rejected accordingly".
5. I further find that the Member, Board of Revenue has twice' considered the question of the entitlement of the petitioners. He has also concurred with the findings of the Additional Commissioner. Moreover, the question of entitlement of the petitioners being a pure question of fact, I do not desire to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3. The petitioners having been heard by the respondents 2 and 3, it cannot be said that they stand condemned unheard.
6. For what has been stated above there being no merit, this writ petition, is dismissed in limine.