' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks the grant of leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 12-5-1999 and 25-4-1997 respectively passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in I. C.A. No.99 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.5327 of 1980.
2. The petitioner claimed to be a lessee of the State land under five years temporary cultivation scheme under the allotment order, dated 24-10-1975 by the Colony Assistant/Collector which was set aside by order, dated 9-7-1997 by the. Additional Commissioner on an appeal filed by Ghulam Nabi. The revision petition of the petitioner was also dismissed by order, dated 12-1-1978 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue as the lease in favour of the petitioner was found void ab initio.
Thereafter, the petitioner resorted to civil litigation and obtained a temporary injunction on 1-3-1979 from the Civil Court which was vacated by the Appellate Court on 28-2-1980. The petitioner claimed that by virtue of Notification, dated 3-9-1979 issued by the Board of Revenue, he was entitled to acquire the proprietary rights of the land in dispute. During the proceedings on the Revenue side it transpired that a major chunk of the land in question had already been allotted to Ghulam Nabi by order, dated 22-9-1975. Therefore, the lot leased out to petitioner was included in the schedule prepared by the Board of Revenue, by Notification, dated 7-2-1980; for auction of the property. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.5327 of 1980 challenging the Notification, dated 7-2- 1980 for the auction of the land in dispute which was dismissed by order, dated 25-4-1997 by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The petitioner filed Intra-Court Appeal thereafter which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 12-5-1989 by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights of the land in dispute which had been validly allotted in his favour under the temporary cultivation scheme for a period of five years:
4. During the pendency of this petition Ghulam Nabi, who was allotted land measuring 48 Kanals out of the land in dispute, made an application for being impleaded as a necessary party. The same is allowed and Ghulam Nabi is added as respondent No.3.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the said respondent was duly allotted 48 Kanals out of the land in dispute on 25-9-1975 which was upheld by order, dated 9-7-1977 by the Additional Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue by order, dated 12-1-1978 whereas the allotment in favour of the petitioner was declared to be void ab initio. The orders passed by the Revenue Authorities became final in all respects via the parties.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent No.3 at length.
We find that the orders, dated 9-7-1977 and 12-1-1978 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as by the Board of Revenue setting aside the allotment of land of the petitioner and confirming the allotment of the respondent No.3 became final qua the parties. Thereafter, the Revenue Authorities were justified to include the portion of the land in dispute, excluding the one already allotted to Ghulam Nabi, in the schedule for auction by virtue of order, dated 7-2-1980. In these circumstances, the petitioner, who was no longer a lessee of the land could not claim the grant of proprietary rights. The view taken by the Lahore High Court in the writ petition as well as in the Intra-Court Appeal by the impugned judgments is unexceptionable. No substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this case.
7. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.