ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---During the disturbances of 1947, Mst. Hajran Bibi and her two daughters Zubeda Bibi and Hussain Bibi migrated to Pakistan. Mst. Hajran Bibi filed Claim No. 11049 for the land of her husband Muhammad Yousaf. Claim was verified and land measuring 51 Kanals was allotted. A mutation of inheritance No. 6 was sanctioned on 11-5-1953 in favour of the widow and her two daughters. On the death of Mst. Hajran Bibi, Mutation No. 240 was sanctioned on 22-7- 1981 in favour of her daughters, and Abdul Latif and Ghulam Mohyuddin, the two brothers of the deceased's husband. Abdul Latif and Ghulam Mohyuddin challenged the mutations Nos. 6 and 240 in appeal but their appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Gujranwala on 25-6-1983. On the motion of the petitioners for review of the mutations, the Collector allowed review vide order dated 2-9- 1984 but on appeal of the daughters, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20-7-1985. Ghulam Mohyuddin's son, Muhammad Shabbir Khan filed a revision petition before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 12-9-1985. He would not rest. He filed a review application. The Member, Board of Revenue directed that the mutation may be reviewed for Sehat, keeping the allotment intact. This is vide order dated 20-1-1987. Mst. Zubeda Bibi and Mst. Hussain Bibi, the daughters of the deceased Mst. Hajran and Muhammad Yousaf, filed a writ petition No. 926 of 1987 which has been allowed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court declaring the order passed in review to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This is vide order dated 6-12-1987. Muhammad Shabbir Khan as petitioner No. 1 and on behalf of Muhammad Yousaf through his General Attorney Muhammad Rafiq, both Muhammad Shabbir Khan and Muhammad Rafiq being sons of Ghulam Mohyuddin, have filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20-9-1987.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge erred in law in setting aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed on review on 20-1- 1987.
3. The contention is totally devoid of force as after repeal of the relevant law and a revision petition having been dismissed on merits by the Member, Board of Revenue on 12-9-1985, there was no jurisdiction or justification to reopen the matter on review. The continuous dragging of daughters in litigation smacks of ill-will. Courts cannot be used to give vent to unhealthy emotions. The entire land was 51 Kanals out of which petitioner No.1's own father and uncle have got their share. The ladies are entitled to remain in peace. 4, This petition is totally without merit and is dismissed