MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Leave is sought on the ground that the Local Commissioner's report puts the area of the property in dispute No.25/C at 868 sq- ft- and this categorical statement cannot be countermanded by the calculations given in the Scheme Exh.C.W.l/2. Further, the statement of the Commissioner in Court wherein he endeavoured to show that a further area of 401 sq. Ft was part of property No.25/C totally destroys the evidentiary value of all the exercise the learned Appellate Court could not abdicate its functions in favour of the Local Commissioner regarding the title of the disputed site; that the declaration of the Assistant Commissioner was final and could not be called in question by a civil Court. The admission of the plaintiff /respondent himself as in his application Exh.P.W.l/D.1 was sufficient to give a lie to his claim that the plot declared by the Assistant Commissioner was a part of, his House No.25/C.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and various orders on the record. The learned Additional District Judge, considering the facts, was justified in appointing Commissioner for ascertaining the identity of the site in dispute and thereafter considering the report and the evidence recorded by the Commissioner on the spot and in the light of the evidence already available on the file came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was transferee of the suit land on the basis of a valid transfer made in his favor and P.T.D. Issued. This question of fact determined by the learned, Additional District Judge has attained finality and is considered as unexceptional in revisional jurisdiction by the learned High Court Judge. Thus, we find no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed.