1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who was allotted 25% beshi land in District Lahore against his verified claim seeks leave to appeal against the appellate judgment of the High Court, dated 10-6- 1985 whereby his appeal against the denial of the excess to him on the basis of orders passed by the Settlement Authorities was dismissed.
2. The petitioner admits that he received 25 per cent excess. He says that this excess allotment to him was not unauthorised but was authorised and fully covered by the two instructions of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 5-1-1952 and 22-10-1952. As the allotment even of the beshi was lawful, he could not be deprived of it.
3. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the so-called statement or admission made by the petitioner before various officers and authorities could be of no avail because in fact no such statement was made nor was it properly recorded.
4. Finally, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case the respondent No. 3 who had moved the Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 and for whose benefit the order has been passed has been adjudged to be an imposter and proceedings at his instance could not deprive the petitioner of his proper allotment.
5. The first ground now taken up and forcefully argued does not appear to have been specifically taken up and argued as it does not find mention in either of the judgments of the High Court. In the settlement hierarchy this matter stood concluded by a finding that the petitioner had not filed his claim form in Lahore District nor got it transferred to Lahore District before the target date. The effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to demonstrate to us that he had not only filed the claim form in Lahore District but he had also got it re-transferred from Sahiwal within the target date. This factual objection) having not been taken except in the settlement hierarchy and not pressed in the High Court during the course of arguments and not dealt with is not open to the petitioner at this stage.
6. The High Court has given effect to the admissions of the petitioner recorded at various stages with regard to it. We have gone through the order of the Assistant Commissioner exercising the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner, Kasur, dated 16-4-1576 and have also read his comments in respect of it made on 24-5-1976 and consider that the High Court has not committed any error in giving effect to such admissions and not extending the constitutional jurisdiction to his benefit. It is not very material whether the hands of the respondent No. 3 are clean or not because the land resumed from the petitioner will only go to those who are entitled to it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.