Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur, in Civil Revision No, 291-D of 2001, dated 7.5.2001.
2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner he was allotted state land measuring 12 acres and 04 Kanals, in Chak No, 83-F Tehsil Rahim Yar Khan on lease for a period of five years; that he was also delivered possession; and that he also took efforts to make the land fertil and cultivable. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rahim Yar Khan, after hearing the petitioner, cancelled the lease on 21.1.1981 which order was challenged by the petitioner before the Addition Commissioner Bahawalpur, which was also rejected on 8.2.1986. Thereafte the petitioner filed Civil Suit No, 56 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Judge, Rahim Yar Khan with the averments that he was leased out the above mentioned state land and he by putting hard labour and investing huge amount, made the land cultivable but the revenue authorities cancelled his lease.
3. The respondent-Province of the Punjab through Collect contested the suit and raised legal objections and submitted that the suit barred under the specific provisions of Colonization of Government Lan (Punjab) Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that he was allotted the suit property as a tenant for a specific period of five years and that accordingly to tenancy agreement wherein it was specifically mentioned that after expiry of the lease period he will restore the property back to the Provincial Government.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed four issues. The parties adduced evidence. The trial Court, after considering the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment dated 21.11.2000. The petitioner assailed the said judgment before the First Appellate Court and the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dismissed the. Civil Appeal No, 110 of 2000 on 3.2.2001 and maintained the judgment/decree of the trial Court.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned the High Court by filing civil revision mentioned hereinabove, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers vide order impugned herein. Hence, this petition.
6. We have heard Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner who, inter alia, contended that the Courts below had not considered the case in its proper perspective and that the impugned order of the revenue hierarchy is in violation of the Act.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was leased out the state land for a period of five years, which was not renewed and the same was cancelled. Record further shows that revenue authorities heard the petitioner and after going through the record rightly cancelled the lease of the petitioner, which order was assailed by the petitioner before the Courts below.
8. The learned Judge in Chambers had considered the case in its proper perspective and after going through the material available rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner with sound and cogent reasons. The impugned order is based on the proper appreciation of facts and law. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not born out from the record.
There is no misreading or non-reading of the material or any contravention of Section 24 of the Act.
9. The petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application and leave declined.