' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from order, dated 17-11- 2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No,5570 of 2001.
2. The brief facts of the case are that late Mirza Farooq Baig was a lessee of the State land measuring 130 acres, 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas in village Rakh Bhalewal, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara for a period of 10 years from. Kharif, 1968 to Rabi, 1978 which was extended in his favour up to 1995.
The aforesaid lessee/tenant passed away on 24-6-1994. The petitioner made an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 1-2-1995 for transfer of the lease/tenancy in his favour on the basis of alleged gift of the said property purported to have been made by his deceased brother in his favour. However, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector resumed the State land in favour of the Provincial Government, by order dated 20-4-1995. The petitioner filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division and the Board of Revenue, which were dismissed, by orders dated 5-11-1995 and 26-3-2001 respectively. Therefore, the petitiorier filed Writ Petition No,5570 of 2001 which was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment, dated 17-11-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that original lessee, late Mirza Farooq Baig was unmarried who died issueless. The deceased had made a valid gift in favour of the petitioner which was required to be accepted by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector who unjustifiably passed an order, dated 20-4-1995 for resumption of State land without issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner which was violative of the provisions of section .24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was next contended that by virtue of section 19-A of the Act, in the event of death of any Muslim tenant, succession of tenancy would devolve on his heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). Therefore, the petitioner could not be deprived of rights of succession of land in dispute.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It appears from record that late Mirza Farooq Baig was leased out the land in dispute for ten years by the Colony Assistant, Pakpattan through auction which was confirmed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, by order, dated 22-10-1968 under the terms and conditions of Notification No,3369/67-198-CL-I, dated 7-2-1968. Paragraph 2 of the said Notification empowers, the Collector to resume the land. The report of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Depalpur submitted before the Lahore High Court in writ petition also shows that Mirza Yaqoob Baig never cultivated the land in question which was in fact "Chhant" and that 1/4th of the lease money was also not paid in time. It appears, that late Mirza Farooq Baig had other brothers, and sisters, who never came A forward with any claim. The period of tenancy has already expired. The provisions of section 19 of the Act expressly provide that none of the rights or interest vested in a tenant by or under the Act shall, without the consent in writing of the Commissioner, be transferred or changed by any sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract and any such transfer or change shall be void. If such a transferee had obtained the possession, he would be ejected under the order of the Collector. The petitioner was disentitled to lay any claim on the basis of gift. He being not a lessee or a tenant could not take the benefit of section 24 of the Act. The High Court was justified in taking the view that the lessee was not entitled to transfer any right or interest in the State land except after permission of the competent authority. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.