' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---The la \d in dispute was allotted to Abdul Ghani petitioner, as an Islamabad Oustee under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He executed an agreement for its sale in favour of Niamat Ali, who died during the pendency of this litigation and was substituted by his legal representatives, the respondents heiein. It is discernible from the agreement that the petitioner was made part payment of the consideration agreed to between the parties under the agreement. The proprietary rights were conferred on him on 14-4- 1980. Niamat Ali filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and after his death, as stated earlier, he was replaced by the respondents. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21-7-1987, with which the learned First Appellate Court did not differ and dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 21-4-1988. The revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court met the same fate. It was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by order dated 19-9-1992. This dismissal is under challenge before us, and leave to appeal is sought from the order dated 19-9-1992.
2. It is argued that the agreement was hit by section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and thus the suit for specific performance did not lie.
3. The execution of the agreement and the conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioner are not denied. It is contended that even after conferment of proprietary rights his status remained that of a tenant. The latest judgment of this Court covering the law on the subject is in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others (1992 SCM R 1510), with which the learned Counsel has been confronted. He vainly endeavoured to distinguish it, but we are not persuaded by his submissions. Even otherwise, grant of leave under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary. In the circumstances of the case we do not feel inclined to exercise this discretion in his favour.
' This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.