1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Full dress arguments were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged certain findings of fact; for instance as to who constructed the shop, factum of possession, allotment pertaining to the plot over which the shop was constructed and the payment of rent. All these questions have been properly and thoroughly examined by the Settlement Authorities as well as in the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-2-1983 against which the present petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Abdul Rashid.
2. Learned Judge of the High Court observed, "...Settlement Commissioner has given a finding of fact that the respondents' predecessors-in-interest were in possession and they built the shop. This finding is supported by the material on record".
3. ' Learned Judge further made sure as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. He observed, "...Para. 6 of the impugned order,however, shows that both the parties relied upon their written arguments, already on the file. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this averment".
4. ' For the foregoing reasons we don't think that the order impugned either suffers from any error of law or involves a question of public importance which needs to be examined. It is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.