' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to app{{PAGE CUTT RETYPE}} against the order/judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-4-1 whereby his Constitution Petition filed challenging the consolidat proceedings was dismissed.
2. The petitioners were satisfied with the consolidation scheme w{{PAGE CUTT RETYPE}} was confirmed on 12-6-1980. However, that proposal was revised after rem on 7-2-1984 in which the class II land of the petitioners measuring 4 kana marlas was withdrawn from him and instead he was given 4 kanals 8 ma elsewhere. This revised scheme was ultimately approved by the Boar Revenue. The review sought by the petitioners failed.
3. The two grounds taken up before the Board of Revenue were hereunder:-- "(i) The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that Kh{{PAGE CUTT RETYPE}} No,21/6/1(4 Kanals 6 Marlas) which has been taken away from petitioners is more valuable being near the Abadi Deh, on road and is also situated in front of their houses. It was previously own the petitioners, as such the respondents have no preferential right that number. Since the respondents have already been adjusted village Abadi, the Additional Commissioner was not justified in more land to them near Abadi."
"(ii) The land given to the petitioners in consolidation operations w account of mutual compromise between the family of the petiti The petitioners have not received any land from the respon therefore, adjustments made by the Additional Commissioner ( are liable to be set aside."
' The learned Member of the Board of Revenue disposed of both objections with the following finding:.-- "I have gone through the arguments of the learned counsel an{{PAGE CUTT RETYPE}} perused the record. The plea of the petitioners that they hay deprived of valuable land near Abadi Deh is not supported record. A perusal of sketch map clearly shows that the peti have been fairly and adequately adjusted according to entitlement. Even in regard to giving them land close to the Deh they have not been treated adversely. In fact they have been given much more land than what they possessed prior to consolidation near Abadi Deh. In view of this I find no merit in the request of the petitioners for intervention at the revisional stage. The revision petition is dismissed."
4. The High Court in rejecting the Constitution Petition and refusing to interfere with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue observed as thereunder:-- "In the course of hearing, I specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioners (who is the same in all three cases) as to where are the plans relating to pre-consolidation and post-consolidation holdings? His mere reply was that since on account of their size they may have not been conveniently managable, therefore, he has not provided them on these records. I wanted to see those plans but none was in fact available with him and he did not even express any desire for opportunity being provided to supply them.
' It is not possible to proceed with these cases in any satisfactory manner on the basis of such incomplete records and any exercise attempted on their basis is bound to be futile." '
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners wants to take up the same pounds before us as were taken before the Board of Revenue and in the High Court, In support no additional material has been produced before us to show it ex facie the view taken by the Board of Revenue is against the weight of record or is manifestly untenable. No question of law as{{PAGE CUTT RETYPE}} such arises in the e to require our further examination in this Court.
6. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused.