KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the litigation and the stages through which this case passed and for the purpose of the present order ft will be sufficient to mention that the land in dispute which has been allotted to the petitioner/plaintiff under the "Grow-More-Food Scheme" was resumed by the order of the Collector dated 17-6-1969, on the ground of his failure to pay the relevant price/dues in time. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit challenging the aforesaid resumption order which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal on 16-3-1976.
2. Respondent Misri Khan to whom the land in dispute had been allotted after it was earlier resumed from the name of the petitioner, filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, who on 24-7-1976 reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.
3. The petitioner then .Filed a second appeal being R. S. A. 789/76 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 22-3-1977. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) before the land could be resumed it was incumbent on the collector to examine whether the mistake on the part of the defaulter was rectifiable or not. If the mistake or breach was rectifiable then the Collector was bound to give an opportunity to the defaulter to pay the price. 1t was submitted, that as no such the opportunity was given to the petitione by the Collector, therefore, his order of resumption was without lawful authority and in excess of his jurisdiction. The contention has no merit. It may be pointed out, that the petitioner had himself filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector which was accepted by the Commissioner who gave two months time to the petitioner to pay the price. It was after the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid order that the land, was resumed from him.
The petitioner in the circumstances cannot legitimately raise any grievance against the forfeiture of the land from him.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the Commissioner aforesaid was also not in accordance with law, because, according to the learned counsel, instead of granting time to the petitioner the Commissioner should have remanded the case to the Collector to do so. In the alternative it was argued that even if there was any further default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the order of the Commissioner, then again as the breach was such which could have been met by imposing any other penalty the forfeiture of the tenancy should not have been ordered. The plea raised has no merit. It may be mentioned that the order of the Commissioner was not challenged by the petitioner in his suit who was even otherwise not a party thereto. In the circumstances the argument advanced cannot proceed. Secondly the Commissioner bad rectified the order of the Collector and gave time to the - petitioner but as he again defaulted therefore the Collector was justified to order forfeiture of the land. The plea claiming successive extension of time every time when a default was committed cannot be endorsed because if accepted it will lead to a situation where collector would never be in a position to pass any order ad infinitum.
6. The result is that the petition has no merit and is dismissed.