1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Constitutional petition.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel according to original claim of consolidation the petitioners were given about three times the area of their own land but it was a Class-IV quality land. It happened in 1965. During the proceedings till now (the details of which are not necessary for the disposal of this petition), the area so given to the petitioners has been withdrawn and they have been returned their own land.
3. Undoubtedly there might be some force in the technical arguments raised by the learned counsel; particularly one with regard to the improvements made by the petitioners' side during the last more than two decades that the land initially granted to them, remained with them. But the fact remains that their own land has been returned to them. Not only this, as stated by the learned counsel, the improvements having been made in the very beginning they have reaped benefits from about 100 Kanals of extra land so improved, for this long period. On the other hand if originally the land belonging to them would have remained with them for this period, the area thereof being muchless as compared to what has been taken away from them, they would have earned much less. Therefore, broadly speaking, the improvements made by them, if any, got compensated by the income and benefit they derived from the additional land for such a long period.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel on various questions involved in the case, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.