' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Bahadur petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 30-1-1981, 9-8-1981 and 22-9-1983 passed by learned Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue, respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition, in brief, are that in the year 1971, the disputed land was allotted to the petitioner under 15 years lease scheme. The petitioner applied for the grant of its proprietary rights. The Assistant Commissioner refused the request on 30-1-1981. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 9-8-1981. The revision filed by him was also rejected on 22-9-1983, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of respondents Nos.1 to 3 are factually incorrect inasmuch as, the petitioner had himself cultivated the land and that under the law he was free to sublease it.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The three respondents have concurrently found that the petitioner had not cultivated the land himself and had also sublet it without permission in writing of the Government in violation of the statement of conditions. The Colony Clerk and the Patwari had appeared before the learned Member, Board of Revenue with record. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has observed that:- "The fifteen years lease scheme having expired on 31-5-1971 it was not known how the land was leased out to the petitioner after the crucial dates." and that in Rabi 1972, the petitioner has been shown as illicit cultivator. The learned Member, Board of Revenue found the petitioner entitled for the proprietary rights only over Square No,25/23 to 25 at the most. He however, directed that during the enquiry as directed by the learned Commissioner if it is found that no manipulation in the revenue record was made, then the proprietary rights be allowed to the petitioner. It may be noted here that the Commissioner had found the revenue record in respect of Khasra No,18/1 entirely doubtful and he had directed the Collector to trace out the person responsible for supplying false document to the petitioner. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel require factual enquiry which is neither permissible nor desirable in writ jurisdiction.
5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in the petition the same is dismissed in limine.