' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgment dated 2-11-1999 whereby Civil Revision No,1451-D of 1986 was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. .
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application for sanctioning a building plan of the suit property measuring 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas which was rejected by the respondent No,1 on 26-7-1975. He filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction that the very scheme framed by the respondent/Corporation within which the suit property fell was illegal. The Civil Judge, Sialkot dismissed the civil suit of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 24-4-1984. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 16-4-1986 followed by the impugned judgment dated 2-11-1992 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,1451-D of 1986.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court was bound to pass a speaking order and to go through the record of the case before disposing of the civil revision. There was neither any properly sanctioned scheme nor any valid acquisition covering the suit-land.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property was included in an approved scheme of the respondent/corporation since 1942-43 and that the suit property had been duly atquired. It was also observed that the petitioner had admitted The acquisition of the suit property and had produced through P.W.2, a Building Inspector of the respondent-Corporation a copy of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No,365 of- 1967. In these circumstances, there was no question of the sanctioning of the building plan of the petitioner qua the suit property the title of which already vested in the respondent-Corporation. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal.
5. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.