1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd February, 1983 whereby the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that some land was allotted to late Nawabzada Liaqat All Khan etc. In District Okara. One Ibrahim father of respondent No,3 filed an appeal claiming inter alia some land in Khasra No,17/3. He succeeded before the Additional. Rehabilitation Commissioner who set aside the allotment in favour of the late Nawabzada etc. And directed that it may be allotted to Ibrahim as temporary allotteee against his claim. He further directed that the family of the Nawabzada be accommodated in the area to be vacated by Ibrahim. However, Ibrahim got his area back but no corresponding change was made in the Khata of the late Nawabzada. Later the Nawabzada etc. Sold the entire land allotted to them to the petitioner during 1961, 1962 and 1966. In January 1963 Muhammad Shafi respondent got Khasra No,17/1 in square No,35 measuring 2 Kanals allotted against his unsatisfied urban claim. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for correction of the record on which a report was made by the Revenue authorities. The report was to the effect that the area of this 2 Kanals allotted to Muhammad Shafi respondent should be considered to have already been allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner and therefore it should be cancelled from his name. It was accordingly cancelled. However, the appeal of Muhammad Shafi respondent was allowed and it was restored. The case of the petitioners before the High Court was that since originally the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner had ordered that the Nawabzada etc. Should be accommodated in the area to be vacated by Ibrahim, the area restored to Muhammad Shafi respondent (in Khasra No,17/1) will as such vest in the petitioners as purchasers of the entire holding of the Nawabzada etc. The writ petition was dismissed for the reason that the petitioners being purchasers could only rely on the ownership of their predecessor as shown in the last Jamabandi and could take only those proceedings which their predecessor-in-interest could take. In the instant case there was a finding of fact as against the petitioners and even if it could be claimed that the record had been tampered with, this matter had already been decided by the competent authority. And the High Court could not embark to hold an investigation in respect of the tampering of the Revenue record and to give a decision thereon.
3. We have partly heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He admits that unless the findings of fact are disturbed no relief can be granted in this case. Obviously the findings of fact cannot be interfered with at this stage. We, therefore do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.