' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14- 1-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,1126 of 1984.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate of Khanpur, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, was settled on 31-12-1978. Petitioner Muhammad Siddique was given one Marla excess of first class land. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Collector on 27-7-1981, against which, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, which was allowed on 20-4-1.982 and,the matter was remanded to the Collector. On 4-1-1983, the Collector maintained the Scheme as passed by Consolidation Officer on 31-12-1978. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed appeal. On 26-4-1983 the Additional Commissioner passed the order to the effect that during the course of arguments the parties agreed to the restoration of original position. The expression "original position" caused a fresh controversy between the parties and, therefore, they filed review petitions. While the review petition of the petitioner was filed, in the review petition brought by respondents Nos.2 and 3, the Additional.
Commissioner passed a fresh order, dated 7-6-1983, and allotted specific numbers to the parties.
Against this, petitioner filed revision petition, which was dismissed by Board of Revenue on 22-1- 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 7-6-1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner and that of the Board of Revenue dated 22-1-1984, through Constitutional petition, which, too, was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14-1-2002. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court had not considered the entire case in its true perspective and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and, minutely examined the record. Admittedly, Consolidation Scheme was carried on and the parties approached the Member, Board of Revenue, which compromise was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, through the revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Lahore dated 7-6-1983, whereby certain clerical mistakes in his earlier order dated 26-4-1983 were made on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The Member, Board of Revenue found that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was right in allowing clerical/typographical errors occurring in his order dated 26- 4-1983 which was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. The High Court after considering relevant material found that correction was rightly allowed by the Revenue hierarchy, which was the result of compromise arrived at between the parties and that the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) as well as Member, Board of Revenue were within the legal parameters and within their domain. Moreover, the High Court fur* found that scope of the Court pertaining to the consolidation matter was very limited and with sound and cogent reasons the learned Single Judge in Chambers refused to interfere in the matter. The impugned judgment is not open to exception.
5. This petition is without merit, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application, and leave to appeal is declined.