SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 26-5-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners.
2. There are two plots of 8 Marlas each bearing Khasra Nos. 1181 and 1184 in Mauza Gakhar Mandi of Tehsil Wazirabad. Both these plots were owned by Muhammad Sharif, respondent No. 2, and Muhammad A.I, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos 3 to 13. By a registered deed, dated 21- 3-1970 the petitioner purchased one of these plots from Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad A.I.
Although in the sale-deed the plot purchased by the petitioner was described to be the one bearing Khasra No.1184 the case of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 was that the plot in fact sold by them bore Khasra No. 1181. Their assertion in this regard was supported by the fact that after purchasing the plot the petitioner had constructed his house on Khasra No. 1181. During the course of the consolidation proceedings the revenue authorities upheld the assertion of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 and allocated Khasra-- No. 1181 to the petitioner. The High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with this finding.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that as the two Khasra numbers fell within the Municipal limits of Gakhar Mandi the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to extend their operations to include these Khasra numbers also.
4. It is not necessary for us to examine the contention of the petitioner for clearly he has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has been in possession of both the plots even though he purchased only one of them. He has not surrendered the possession of the plots which according to his own showing he had not purchased under this sale-deed of 21-3-1970. Although he did allege at one stage that he had entered into an oral agreement with the owners for purchase of the other plot also it was merely a bald assertion which he did not care to substantiate. Since the petitioner himself is holding on to two plots when he is entitled to retain only one, we would refuse to grant leave to appeal to him.