1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIM, J.-The facts of this case briefly stated are that one Hasan Mahmood purchased the State-land in dispute in an open auction held on 2-12-1962 for Rs. 64,467. He deposited the Initial-deposit-money of Its. 15,990 and the balance of Rs. 48,777 was payable by him in three yearly installments. Hasan Mahmood then sold the land to the petitioners after obtaining the requisite permission from the Collector. The Collector, however, resumed the land by the order dated 31-1-1965 for non-payment of the amount of the installments. The petitioners challenged this order in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, who taking lenient view of the matter allowed the petitioners by the order dated 29-3-1965 to pay all the dues of the first instalment as well as second instalment which was to be paid on 28-2-1965, with penal interest at Rs.9 Y. Within a fortnight. Petitioners instead of availing of this leniency, challenged this order in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue who on 19-5-1975 again passed an order to the effect that "the revision would be taken on merits when all the payments due had been made on the date fixed". Thereafter the petitioners failed to appear in support of the revision application and the learned counsel appear--ing for them was not in a position to furnish any reason for the non-deposit of the amount of the installments. The petitioners then on 6-8-1966 approached the Collector for grant of permission to deposit the amount in terms of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 29-3-1965 but the Collector refused to allow them any further time in view of the order of the Board of Revenue. Petitioners challenged this order in a second round of litigation up to the Board of Revenue but they failed, and Writ Petition No. 1820 of 1968 filed by them in Lahore High Court was also dismissed.
2. They then filed the present petition seeking special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. Malik Taleb Hussain, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, raised almost the same points as were advanced before the High Court but since all these have been rejected for the valid reason that in spite of the fact that the petitioners were twice afforded reasonable opportunities A for making up the default but they failed to do so no fault can be found with the High Court in dismissing the Constitutional petition. No law o rule governing the facts of the present case was pointed out to the High Court nor to us in support of this petition. In our view this is a totally misconceived petition and is dismissed in limine.