KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The only point argued is that some of the reasons given by this Court in para.8 of its previous judgment dated 2-4-1979 now under review are not correct on the point of the possession of Sh. Muhammad Ismail, respondent, and the finding that the petitioners had not raised that point at various stages was erroneous. However, it was conceded that the aforesaid point did not figure in the impugned judgment of the L.P.A. Bench or in the relevant order of the Settlement Department. In this state of affairs, we refrain from making any further observations and will dismiss this review application by simply observing that neither legally nor factually the petitioners have made out any case for review of the previous order, aforesaid.
2. The review application is accordingly dismissed.