RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J: - This is a petition filed by Zaheer Ahmad Khan petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3-11-1986 dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.356-R/1986 filed by him.
2. The petitioner challenged the order of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, dated 22-9- 1986 holding the petitioner's allotment as not genuine in writ petition filed by him before the Lahore High Court. A learned single Judge dismissed the said petition in limine on the ground that the question whether the petitioner's allotment was genuine or not was a question of fact, which had been decided by the Tribunal on the evaluation of the material on the record, including the statement of one Mr. Khalid Mahmood, and that therefore, the High Court did not consider it to be a 6t case for interference.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the detailed statement of Mr. Khalid Mahmood, retired Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad, who appeared before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Gujranwala, respondent No.1, where he categorically stated on oath that the land was confirmed by him on 28-3-1973 as Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) and his signatures on the `Khatas' were genuine and that he had seen the original record, which was with the Settlement Department, when he had made his confirmation, were not taken into consideration by the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whilst dismissing the writ petition. It is further submitted that there was sufficient material on the file to prove the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, respondent No.1, discussed threadbare the reasons which weighed with him in arriving at the finding that the petitioner's allotment was not genuine. The said officer also had the statement of Mr. Khalid Mahmood before him. The reasons given by the said officer in arriving at the finding, which he did, do not appear to be perverse or erroneous. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge was correct in holding that the question whether the petitioner's allotment was genuine or not, was a question of fact which had been decided by the Tribunal on a proper evaluation of the material before him and that, therefore, no interference was called for.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. This petition is accordingly dismissed.