CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.-----This writ petition has been directed against order dated 6-10-2@09 passed by Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were allotted suit land fully described in para 1 of the writ petition under Grow More Food Scheme on 5-8-1959. The petitioners were also put into possession on 9-8-1959. After obtaining the possession of the land, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners started cultivation of land and brought it under cultivation after spending 'huge amount. The land at the time of allotment' was barren and was subject of salinity which was developed, by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The petitioners are poor landess tenants while respondents Nos.3 to 12 are industrialists. The land allotted to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was never cancelled and is still intact. The petitioners got sanctioned canal water and also has been paying lagan to the government without default but without ascertaining the rights of the petitioners, respondent No,1 could not have decided the case in review petition. The said order was ex parte, therefore, the application of the petitioners for impleading them as a party be entertained and case of the petitioners be decided on merit rather than on technicalities.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners who have also filed the civil suit which is pending adjudication before a competent court of law. The appeal filed by the petitioners before District Officer (Revenue) was badly time-barred. There are number of factual controversies which could not be looked into in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the writ petition in hand be dismissed with costs.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record highlights that the suit land was allotted to the predecessor in interest of the respondents in 1959 under Grow More Food Scheme but this allotment was terminated after some years i,e, in 1961. Thereafter the possession of the suit land was resumed and it was leased out to Agricultural University Faisalabad for a period of 10 years vide order dated 30-3-1988. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed a civil suit and also annexed therewith an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of stay order which application was dismissed on 28-9-2006 by the learned trial Court. The petitioners filed an appeal which met the same fate and it was also dismissed on 8- 3-2007 by learned District Judge concerned. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before District Officer (Revenue), which was dismissed being time-barred.
6. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the suit land since 1959 and have developed it after spending huge amounts but the petitioners have neither annexed even a single document in support of their possession or version nor they have challenged the order of resumption which has already attained finality. The suit land has been transferred to respondents Nos.3 to 12 in whose favour proper conveyance deed has already been executed and mutation has also been sanctioned in their favour. Therefore, the request of the petitioners that they be impleaded as a party and opportunity of hearing be afforded to them is of no consequence, as there are not only concurrent findings of fact of two learned courts below against the petitioners but also a number of controversial questions of facts are involved in the matter. The order of resumption has attained finality and a civil suit is also pending adjudication before a competent court of law.
7. In the light of what has been stated above, this writ petition is without merit, as such the same is dismissed.