' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10-6-1999, whereby Writ Petition No,13552 of 1998 of the petitioners, was dismissed in limine.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ghulam Ali Shah, petitioner No,1 filed a Declaration LR-1 under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 which was scrutinized by Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang, who after scrutiny found the transactions made by the petitioners after 1-3-1967 to be valid and submitted his report on 13-6-1972 to the Land Commissioner, Sargodha. The Commissioner after hearing the declarant held the transactions made through Mutations Nos.63, 262, 264, 272, 274, 275, 292, 294, 300, 302, 323, 334, 335, 341, 349, 351, 352 and 356 to be valid whereas transactions made vide Mutations Nos.67, 77, 78 and 79 to be void vide his order dated 5-7-1972. Respondents Nos.4 to 6 who had purchased the land measuring 222 Kanals, 10 Marlas from petitioner No,1 vide Mutation No,78, attested on 18-1-1969 challenged the aforesaid order before the Chief Land Commissioner on 29-11-1983 i.e, after more than eleven years which was dismissed as barred by time on 11-12- 1983. Against the said order, the respondents filed revision petition before the Federal Land Commission who by upholding the order impugned therein dismissed the revision petition.
3. The respondents then filed Writ Petition No,4624 of 1984 which was accepted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide its judgment dated 31-10-1995 and the case was remanded to the Federal Land Commission for its decision on merits.
4. On remand, the Federal Land ,Commissioner accepted the revision petition and declared that Mutation No,78, dated 18-1-1969 of the village Latifpur was valid.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No,13552 of 1998, which has been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide its judgment dated 10-6-1999, impugned herein.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record of the case.
Admittedly, petitioner No,1, in his declaration submitted by him under MLR 115 of 1972, had declared that he had sold an area of 27.812 acres i.e, 222 Kanals, 10 Marlas equal to 809 PIUs to respondents Nos.4 to 6 for Rs,23,300 vide Mutation No,78 sanctioned on 18-1-1969 which according to the report of the Deputy Land Commissioner was found valid in view of para. 7 Explanation III of M.L.R. 115 as said mutation had been incorporated in the Register Haqdaran Zameen and the respondents were in possession of the land in question. The finding of the Deputy Land Commissioner ultimately prevailed and was restored by the Federal Land Commission after remand of the case which was upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The conduct of petitioner No,1 is regrettable as he took U-turn to disown his own sale made by him in the year 1968 for petty worldly gains. The impugned judgment of the learned High Court is well-reasoned and well-founded, hence no exception thereto is taken.
7. This petitions being frivolous is dismissed with costs and leave refused.