1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by some land-owners against the dismissal by the High Court of their writ petition which had arisen out of a consolidation matter.
2. ' The dispute now left to be resolved, revolves around the piece of land, which falls within the plot No, 55; wherein, according to the petitioners, their built up property including houses, is situate.
3. ' The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observations in this behalf: "The next point raised is that as the petitioners had their pucca-houses in killa No, 8 of rectangle No, 55, the same could not be taken away. It is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the argument on 11th July, 1981, before the Additional Commissioner, conceded that rectangle No, 55 may be taken away from them and they may be given rectangle No,
56. The Additional Commissioner also observed that the allotment of rectangle No, 55 in favour of respondents had to be maintained in view of a previous order of the Board of Revenue. Admittedly, the petitioners did not challenge that order further and so acquiesced in that part also. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel cannot be heard at this stage to say that the whole thing should be reopened. It may further be noted that there is no mention of any pucca-houses in the arguments of the learned counsel, in the order of the learned Additional Commissioner."
4. After hearing the learned counsel who, while being unable to deny the correctness of the facts stated in the afore-quoted observations, contended that the concession made from the petitioners' side was conditional. And as the petitioners have been put to loss without the satisfaction of the relevant conditions, the reliance on their concession or admission was not justified.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment as it is based on the admission made from the petitioners' side and the so called conditions now made the basis for the arguments before us, were not then agitated.
6. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The same is refused.