1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 230, 232, 233 and 234 of 1976 as these pertain to the same property and are between the same parties.
2. Some State land situated in Chak No. 81/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura had been allotted to Mohammad Rafiq. Mohammad RamzAn, Mohammad Saleem and Abdul Hamid, hereinafter to be referred to as `Grow More Allottees, under the `Grow More Food' Scheme sometimes in 1958. The allottees made default in payment of rent and the Collector by his order dated the 14th of March, 1968, cancelled the allotment in their names. The additional ground for the cancellation was that the land was found to be within five miles radius of a town. The Grow More Allottees, went up in appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner accepted the appeal with the condition that the allottees should clear the arrears of rent by the 10th of January, 1969, failing which their appeal shall stand dismissed. The allottees did not deposit the arrears within time and the Collector thereupon by his order dated the 25th of May, 1969, resumed the land from the Grow More Allottees.
3. The land was thereafter allotted by I the Collector to Mohammad A.I son of Daulat, Sheru, Mohammad A.I son of Wasawi, Mohammad Sharif and. Mohammad Siddiq hereinafter to be referred to as Lease Scheme Allottees; under 15 years' lease. Scheme on the 25th of May 1971.
4. Subsequent to this allotment the Grow More Allottees obtained an order from the Collector for the deposit of the arrears of rent due from them and pursuant to that order deposited the arrears of rent on the 5th of August 1971. After depositing the arrears the Grow More Allottees filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner against the allotment of land to the Lease Scheme Allottees.
5. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated the 20th of March, 1972, accepted the appeals and ordered the restoration of the allotment in favour of the appellants that is to say the Grow More Allottees. It was further ordered that the Lease Scheme Allottees be not ejected until the 31st of October, 1973, and that arrangement for allotment of alternative lands to them be made. The Lease Scheme Allottees filed appeals before the Board of Revenue and a learned Member of the Board of Revenue by his order dated the 29th of April 1972 accepted the appeals, set aside the order of the; Additional Commissioner and remanded the case back to him for deciding it afresh after giving his finding on the points as to whether the Grow More allottees had been cultivating the land and had been living in the village in question. After the remand, the Additional Commissioner by his, order dated 9th of May 1972 again accepted the appeals and restored the allotment of the Grow More Allottees but directed that the Lease Scheme Allottees should retain possession uptill the 31st of October 1972 and should not be ejected till an alternative land had been provided for them.
6. The Grow More Allottees filed review petitions against the aforesaid order and the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated the 2nd of August 1'973 reviewed his earlier orders and allowed the Grow More Allottees to remain in possession of the land. The Lease Scheme Allottees filed revision petition against the aforesaid order dated the 2nd of August 1973 and a learned ember of the Board of Revenue by his order dated the 29th of April 1974 dismissed the revision petition but directed that alternative land be provided to he Lease Scheme Allottees.
7. The Lease Scheme Allottees then filed writ petitions in the High Court for setting aside the orders dated the 2nd of August 1973 and the 29th of April 1973 as being illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. A learned Single Judge by his order dated the 9th of December 1974 dismissed all the petitions. The Lease Scheme Allottees have thus filed the present four petitions for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order dated the 9th of December, 1974, of the High Court.
8. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge 'on the 9th of December 1974. The petitioners filed inter Court appeals which were also dismissed on the 11th of December 1975 being incompetent. The petitioners applied for copies of the judgments on the 11th of December1975 and these were ready on the 20th of December 1975. These were, however, delivered to them on the 29th of December 1975. The petitions in this Court were filed on the 5th of March 1976 and even if time spent in getting copies from 11thof December 1975 to the 29th of December 1975 is allowed to them still the petitions are not within time. No other explanation has been filed for not filing the petitions within time and the petitions are, therefore, evidently time-barred and liable to dismissal on this account. Anyhow after hearing Mr. Nazir Sheikh, learned Advocate for the petitioners and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that even on merits there is nothing in these petitions.
9. All the contentions that were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners had been discussed by the learned Single Judge in his order and turned down and we perfectly agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for turning down the contentions of the learned counsel. The respondents were the prior, allottees and their allotment was rightly restored to them.
10. The petitioners have been compensated in that it has been ordered that alternative land be provided for them and it is open to them to approach the relevant authorities for the purpose. So far as the present petitions are concerned there is no merit in them and these are hereby dismissed.