1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petitioner, an allottee of State land, has called in question the dismissal by the High Court of his Writ Petition, against the refusal by the respondents' side for grant him proprietary rights.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for the grant of proprietary rights. Therefore, the High Court should have allowed the writ petition with the grant of mandatory injunction to the respondents, in this behalf. The relevant part of the impugned judgment relating to the point raised by the learned counsel reads as follows:-- "According to the record produced by the Patwari, it is true that the petitioner was cultivating this land since Rabi 1976 but the record also shows that this land was reserved for Jammu and Kashmir Refugees in 1978. Para. 2(ii) of the notification of 3-9-1979, under which the petitioner claims the grant of proprietary rights specifically excludes such lands which have been reserved for grants under permanent schemes. It is not denied that the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Scheme is a permanent scheme. It is clear, therefore, that under this notification, the petitioner was not entitled to ihe grant of proprietary rights."
3. ' Learned counsel has, however, tried to show that the finding to the effect that the land in question had been reserved under the permanent scheme for settlement of Jammu and Kashmir Refugees, is not correct.
4. After going through the relevant record relied upon by the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the findings of fact against the petitioner. There is no infirmity noticeable by this Court, in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.