1. ' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The proposition propounded by the learned counsel based on the case of Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi v. K.B. Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan and another (PLD 1964 (W.P.)
2. Lahore 469) stands conceded in the impugned order, dated 17-10-1975 of the learned Single Judge of this Court itself. The learned Single Judge has, however, refused to set aside the impugned order of respondent No,1 on the ground that it is a valid order and does not work any injustice to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding of fact that actually there was an excess of 125 Units but respondent No,1 gave Beshi units to the petitioners and proceeded to declare an excess of only 58 units. This excess was also worked out with the consent of the petitioners who themselves conceded that the said area was in fact in excess. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with by us while hearing this review application as no grounds have been made our for interfering with the same under Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. We also find that the learned Single Judge has taken care of the apprehension of the petitioners that land equivalent to 125 units may be taken away from them. Learned counsel then referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P.
3. No,1159-R of 1966. We have already stated above that so far as the legal proposition is concerned there is no cavil with the same. However, this Court is not under compulsion to set aside the order simply on the ground that the same is shown to be without jurisdiction. We have already referred to the reasoning stated by the learned Single Judge for refusing to exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter and we are not inclined to differ with the same. The review application is accordingly dismissed.
4. Review .