1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Captain Nizam Din, resident of Chak No,233, R.B. District Faisalabad invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court in which he challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Faisalabad , dated 28-8-82. The Constitution petition was dismissed in limine. He now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid order.
2. ' Prior to this respondents 2 and 3 had filed Writ Petition No,166-R-70. That was disposed of by the Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 13-1-80. The matter was remanded.
3. ' The High Court dismissed the second writ petition filed by the petitioner both on the question of delay as well as on merits.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the High Court was contrary to the facts and admitted position on record. According to him a part of Killa No,4, square No,9 alongwith other land measuring 72 kanals 9 marlas was included in Khasra No,171 in Chak No,233/RB Tehsil and District, Faisalabad which was required by the Government for railway track. By virtue of this bifurcation the area of Killa No,4 square No,9 was reduced to 4 kanals 11 marlas. This was the area allotted to Chanan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3, which was later on confirmed.
5. It was by mere inadvertence that the area was shown as 8 Kanals 8 Marlas.
6. ' Learned counsel contended that after remand the Additional Settlement Commissioner erroneously and without any legal justification held that respondents 2 and 3 were allotted Killa No,4 of square No,9 with an area of 8 kanals 18 marlas. He further contended that the learned Judge of Lahore High Court ignored the revenue record pertaining to the years 1934 to 1983. Hence the order contrary to law passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 28-8-1982 was confirmed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We are not inclined to either hold factual enquiry into the matter or go into the question of appreciation of evidence. This has already been done. Even, otherwise, we find from the impugned order that Captain Nizam Din invoked the Constitution jurisdiction after the lapse of one year for which no proper explanation was given to the High Court.
8. ' In the absence of any question of law, we don't think that this is a case where leave is to be granted.
9. ' Dismissed.