' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9t,h March, 2000 of Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that E.A.C.O. Layya vide order, dated 19-7-1976 resumed the land which was allotted to the petitioners by That Development Authority on 20-6-1952 for the reasons that they have failed to appear before him on 19-7-1976 and had also not paid the balance amount of Rs,886 due from them. It is to be noted that in the absence of the petitioners, respondents Nos.3 and 4 had been cultivating the land therefore, without impleading them as party petitioners got the order of E.A.C.O., Layya set aside in appeal which was heard by the Commissioner, Multan Division on 15-1-1979. In such view of the matter when the respondents came to know about the restoration of the land in favour of the petitioners, they preferred Revision which came up for hearing before the Member Board of Revenue (Colonies-II), who after having considered the view point of both the sides accepted the Revision on 29-5-1979, relevant para. For convenience is reproduced herein below:--- "(3) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the impugned order and the relevant record. The respondents did not fulfil the chief condition of cultivating the land themselves and sublet the tenancy for more than three years without the prior permission of the competent authority under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The record shows that the land has been under the cultivating possessions of the petitioners since Rabi 1959. The respondents did not implead the petitioners as to party in the appeal filed before the Commissioner and thus got the land restored in their favour by misrepresentations and fraud. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Commissioner without hearing the petitioners and was, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, I would allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore that of the Collector, dated 19-7-1976.
3. Against the above order a Review Petition was filed by the petitioners but without any success as such they instituted writ petition which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents Nos.3 and 4 are the servants of the petitioners and they were cultivating the land through them as such they have not violated any condition of the scheme notified by the Revenue Department vide notification, dated 20th June, 1955 wherein the conditions were set forth for making the allotments of the land.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the caveators stated that the petitioners were required to cultivate the land themselves but after 1959 they had abandoned the land which came in physical cultivating possession with the respondents Nos.3 and 4 and even today they are in its possession as cultivators, because in open tenders they have been found entitled to retain the possession of the land and lease hold rights have been conferred upon them.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the notification, dated 27th June, 1955 and the conditions mentioned therein. A perusal thereof indicates that the scheme was promulgated for the purpose of granting the lands to the tenants to bring under cultivation un-cultivated areas, meaning thereby that whosoever was allotted the land was required to cultivate the same physically and there was no scope of retaining lease hold rights in absentia. In the instant case, it is a fact that after 1959 the petitioners were not in the physical possession of the property therefore, when the notices were issued by the E.A.C.O.
Layya they did not appear before him on 19th July, 1976 and till then they had also not cleared outstanding dues of Rs,886, therefore, for these two important factors, it was rightly concluded by the Revenu, Authority that the petitioners have got no interest in the cultivation of the land and under the circumstances the Member Board of Revenue vide judgment, dated 26th July, 1979 rightly restored the order of the E.A.C.O. Layya.
7. Learned High Court had also considered all the aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue is just and proper as the same has been passed from material available on record.
8. Thus for the foregoing reasons, instant petition is dismissed being without any substance and leave declined.