' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 26-6-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the Constitutional petition bearing N.o.1165 of 1991 filed by respondent No,1, Ghulam Muhammad.
2. Facts briefly are that the land measuring 98 Kanals, 15 Marlas was allotted to respondent No,1 under temporary scheme of 15 years in Chak No,4-D.B. In Tehsil and District Mianwali. The Collector of Mianwali cancelled number of allotments inclusive of respondent No,1 on a general complaint made against them through his order dated 6th of July, 1977. An appeal was filed by respondent No,1 against the order of cancellation which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 10-1-1978 and the case was remanded. The learned Member, Board of Revenue upheld the remand order and accordingly the A.C./Collector, Mianwali held in categorical terms that the respondent's allotment was genuine. However, during interregnum period it was allotted to petitioners in C.P. No,2920-L of 2001 as oustees of Atomic Energy Plant. It was held that in the circumstances respondent No,1 was not entitled to the proprietary rights. (Underlined is ours (sic)).
3. The respondent challenged this order before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed his appeal 'vide order dated (sic) dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue through his order dated 12-2-1991. All the afore-stated orders of the Revenue Authorities were challenged by respondent No,1 through Constitutional Petition No,1165 of 1991 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and a learned Single Judge after giving detailed reasons has accepted the same and set aside the orders dated 12-8-1987, 7-5-1988 and 12-2-1991 passed by the Revenue Authorities. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions and haVe gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the respondents were allotted disputed land under Fifteen Years Scheme in the year 1971. They were handed over the possession through Rapt No,47 dated 12-10-1972. The cancellation was made through an order dated 6-7-1977 by the Deputy Commissioner having no jurisdiction simply on the ground of general complaints. Said order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and the case was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for reconsideration. This remand order was even upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue through his order dated 29-5-1983.
5. In the process of remand the Assistant Commissioner with the powers of Collector minutely considered the case of the parties. He came to a definite conclusion that the allotment of the respondent was genuine and valid. This determination has not been even interfered by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The respondent was simply ousted that subsequently on 2-12-1985 the disputed land was allotted to the petitioners under Atomic Energy Oustees Scheme. However, in spite of the said allotment the possession of the disputed land remained with the respondents. It is also reflected from the record that at the time of issuance of notification entitling the respondents to secure proprietary rights the disputed land was not included in any permanent scheme. The respondent in spite of the fact that his allotment was determined as genuine and valid has been embroiled in uncalled for litigation for the last about three decades. It would be appropriate at this juncture to reproduce the observation of the learned High Court which are as under:-- "10. It is strange that there was no fault of the petitioner, he was locked up in the litigation due to the illegal order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease. He had vested right for the proprietary rights under the policy of respondent which has been denied due to protracted litigation and meanwhile without accepting the legal rights of the petitioner and opportunity of being heard, the land had been illegally included in the Scheme and transferred the same in favour of the respondents."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly these petitions are dismissed and .