' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The suit for the declaration brought by the respondents, was dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-10-1998; however, on appeal of the respondents, which has been accepted vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-2000, the appellate Court has partly decreed the suit in their favor and directed them to appear before the Collector, who is further directed to act in accordance with the findings contained in the judgment of the learned ADJ.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 7-6-1984, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents brought a suit for the declaration claiming that the suit-land was allotted to him under 15 years Lease Scheme and in accordance with the terms of the allotment, on the expiry of the period, the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of the pro prietary rights. The plaintiff in order to seek such right, exercised his option but no notice was issued by the Collector, as to how much amount should be paid but on 26-2-1984, the notice was issued to the plaintiff under the provisions of section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs,2000 as fine and also the sale price. It is this order, which was assailed in the suit as being illegal and unlawful; the suit as mentioned earlier, was resisted by the petitioner and it was stated that as the plaintiff had failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the order, dated 26-2-1984 which was duly conveyed and communicated to him, therefore, the land in question was rightly resumed by the D.C. Sahiwal; issues were framed by the learned trial Court and by giving his finding upon issue No,3, which reads as follows:-- ' Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under section 36 of the Colonization of Govt. Lands (Punjab) Act,. 1912? OPD ' The learned Court has come to the conclusion that the order is neither illegal nor void and the land has been rightly resumed from the name ofthe plaintiff. However on appeal, the learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-2000, by partly accepting the appeal of the respondents has held "They have been reaping benefits from the disputed property since long without paying anything to the Government. The Collector was empowered to pass order, dated 26-2-1984, whereby the land was resumed, whoever, the fact remains that breach was rectifiable.
Of course predecessor in interest of the appellant was negligent in depositing the sale price. A long time has elapsed since passing of the order, dated 26-2-1984 by the Collector and now the price of the landed property has escalated. It would be in accordance with the equitable doctrine of justice that appellants be granted the proprietary rights on fresh terms and conditions, which would be determined by the Collector Pakpattan Sharif."
3. I am afraid that the learned District Judge has neither discussed and appreciated the evidence on the record, nor the law in this behalf; he has failed to mention as to under which provision, a breach was rectifiable and that the predecessor in interest of the respondents, who admittedly was the defaulter in the matter; had committed breach in terms and condition of the allotment and also failed to pay the price of A the property and also the fine, yet was entitled to the decree by getting the order, dated 26-2-1984, declared as illegal and unlawful. By no means, the order of the Collector was against the law and therefore, on equitable ground that the District Judge should not have interfered with the said order. Resultantly, this revision is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 5-12-2000 is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is upheld, with the result that the suit of the respondent stands dismissed.