' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 24-11-1999 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,495 of 1979 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that both the parties are lying claim to the land measuring 24 Kanals comprising in KhasraNo,7, Rectangle 43, situated in ChakNo,131/TDA, Layyah, on the ground of adjustment. The E.A.C.O. Adjusted the above land in the names of the petitioners through an order dated 30-9-1974. The respondents, feeling aggrieved by the above order, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which was rejected being barred by time on 18-10-1975. Thereafter, they filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, for decision afresh.
3. In post-remand proceedings the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan accepted the appeal and set aside the aforementioned order of the E.A.C.O. The petitioners assailed the said order by filing a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab, through his order dated 16-2-1978. A review petition filed against the aforesaid order was also rejected by him through his order dated 15-6-1978. Writ Petition No,495 of 1979 filed by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 24-11-1999, -impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents annexed with the petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the E.A.C.O. Without appreciating the record, wrongly adjusted the disputed land in the names of the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in the post-remand proceedings after perusing the record came to the conclusion that the land was in possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents since 1967. Instead of adjusting the same in their favour, it was adjusted in the names of the petitioners by the E.A.C.O. Without appreciating this fact.
This determination was upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, while dismissing the revision petition as well as review petition of the petitioners. Learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has maintained these 'determinations by advancing cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 hereby dismissed and .