' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 7-12-2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,538 of 1991 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The present dispute relates to the land measuring 6 Kanals, 16 Marlas falling in Khasra No,1218 of Mauza Kunjah, District Gujrat. It was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Abdullah by the Settlement Authorities on permanent basis in 1967. However, the said land was allotted subsequently on 16-3-1969 on temporary basis to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Mst. Gulshan Bibi inadvertently without realizing that the same had already been allotted on permanent basis to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioner on the basis of the same filed a declaratory suit with consequential relief on 22-1-1979 laying claim to the disputed land. He also pressed into service the name of his predecessor-in-interest Mst. Gulshan Bibi in Jamabandi of 1974-75 in "Cultivation" Column. This suit was resisted by the respondents. Out of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, through his judgment 'dated 10-6-1987 dismissed the suit. An appeal was filed assailing the above judgment, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, through his judgment dated 12-2-1991. Civil Revision No,538 of 1991 filed by the petitioner also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his judgment dated 7-12-2001, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner had not questioned the factum of valid allotment made prior in time in 1967 on permanent basis by the Settlement Authorities to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. If this be so, then how without cancelling the said allotment, it could have been allotted to the petitioners on temporary basis. The allotment to the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents is still holding the field'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has got no answer to this question. This being so, when the earlier allotment on permanent basis by the Settlement Authorities to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, is still holding the field, the petitioner cannot make out any claim for the same land on the basis of his temporary allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
' Resultantly for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is accordingly dismissed and .