FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This petition is barred by 15 days and the delay is condoned for the reasons disclosed in the application for condonation of delay. The petitioners are allegedly the auction-purchasers of State land comprising Lot Nos. 3, S. No. 550 to 556, 565, to 568, 547, 548, 545, 546, 118, 665 and 591,.Measuring 114'25 acres-Ghantas situated in Deh Jamsl, Taluka Kandhkot, District Jacobabad at an auction held in the year 1962-63; under the terms of the auction, which terms are not on record, it is alleged that the auction price was payable in equal installment, the first at the time of auction, which was paid, and the remaining in three yearly installment commencing two years after the auction, which installments were not paid, with the result that tine grant made in favour of petitioners was cancelled on 28-4-1969. On 26-9-1974 the cancelled land was allotted to respondents 4 to 10. In the year 1975 petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Colonization Officer granting the said land to the respondents 4 to 10. The petitioners' case in this appeal was that under a directive received by the Government of Sind from the Federal Government the former was under its Letter No. 1401/74/2827/G-III, dated 4-4-74 pleased to regularise the cancelled grants and the grantees were allowed to make payment of the entire arrears in 6 equal instalments following which the petitioners had in fact paid the first instalment of Rs. 13,000 on 30-10-1974. The appeal was, however, dismissed as time-barred for the reason that "the auction in favour of the petitioner was held in 1962-63 and the land was cancelled in 1968-69 making the gap of more than five years". The petitioners filed a revision before the High Court and Board of Revenue, Sind which was dismissed vide order dated 26-5-1975 on the ground that the land was not restored to the petitioner after its resumption in 1968-69, and the same had been rightly granted to the respondents after a lapse of four- years. The petitioner then moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction which was also dismissed vide order dated 11-10-1978 on the conclusion, firstly that the petitioners had not paid instalments in terms of the Sind Government directive contained in its letter dated 4-4-74 and secondly that the auction in- favour of the petitioners was cancelled in 1969, they were dispossessed in 1974, and in the meantime the rights of the respondents had ripened conferring title on them. It was also noticed that the petitioners have moved the. Revenue authorities for benefit under the aforesaid directive of the Government of Sind for the first time after lapse of a year of the direction.
2. Mr. Bilal, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the Sind Government directive dated 4-4-1974 the cancelled grants were regularised on payment of the entire arrears in six equal instalments which directive ought to have been given effect to by the Revenue Authorities and accordingly cancelled auction ought to have been regularised. The relevance directive reads as follows :----- "On receipt of a direction from the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the-- Government of Sind is pleased to make the following concession in respect of Auction Purchasers of Gudu Barrage Project areas :- - The cancelled grants may be regularised as a special case on th--e payment of entire arrears in six annual equal instalments. However, this will not absolve the grantees of removal action, if any taken --against them. So far their other demands they have been rejected.'
You are therefore directed to give wide publicity in the area within 7 day and also please re-adjust the 'A' form of the concerned grantees on the basis of the above decision."
3. We are unable to read the aforesaid directive as conferring on the petitioners a right to have their cancelled grants regularised. It is expressly a concession and at best it enables the petitioners to move the Provincial Government for regularisation. In the absence of a legal right in the petitioners to obtain regularisation of the cancelled grant, the alternative before the petitioners is only to approach if so Advised, the Provincial Government and make out a case that it was a fit case in which their cancelled grant ought to be regularised.
4. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court sought to be impugned, does not call for our interference and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.