1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3rd July, 1983 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' This is a consolidation matter. The grievance of the petitioner had been minutely examined by learned Judge of the High Court in the light of the entire consolidation record which was summoned in the Court along with the consolidation officer concerned. According to the consolidation record Muhammad Amin the son the petitioner had been appearing on behalf of his father, and signing the relevant resolutions pertaining to the consolidation operation whereunder the petitioner had obtained 634 kanals inclusive of compensatory area of 33 Kanals and 15 Marlas of Class-I soil. The final settlement had been consented and signed by Muhammad Amin his son.
3. However the petitioner had attempted to raise the plea before the High Court that his son had been representing him unauthorisedly. This plea had been rightly rejected by the High Court because the Petitioner had never appeared throughout the consolidation proceedings.
4. Furthermore the finding of the Court is that earlier when the consolidation scheme was confirmed on 30 March, 1962 whereby the petitioner got 121 Kanals and 1 Marla of Mst Khudija Begum A respondent No, 1, it was the very same Muhammad Amin who had consented to that consolidation scheme and signed it. In that case the petitioner had accepted the scheme and felt satisfied with it. Anyway the petitioner had challenged the orders passed by the consolidation authorities by way of writ petition before the High Court which has been dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition.
5. Before us learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that under the consolidation operation he has been granted less land than his entitlement. This aspect of the case has also been minutely examined by learned Judge of the High Court in the light of the consolidation record which indicates that the total entitlement of the petitioner was 443 Kanals and 2 Marlas of Class-I soil after the area of 33 Kanals and 15 Marlas on account of compensation was added to his original entitlement, but actually he has been given an area of 634 Kanals which comprises of 266 Kanals and 8 Marlas Class-I soil, 127 Kanals and 7 Marlas Class-H soil, 56 Kanals and 10 Marlas Class-III soil and 183 Kanals and 151 Marlas Class-IV soil. Besides that the petitioner was a party to the compromise in the consolidation proceedings and therefore the High Court correctly arrived at the conclusion that he could not be permitted to agitate the grievances contradictory to his own conduct. In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.