1. NASIM HASAN SHAH,J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 328 and 336 of 1975 directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-1-1975 in Civil Revisions Nos. 65 and 66 of 1974.
2. The petitioners are land-owners of Mauza Kot Namdar, Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura. A notice of demand was issued against them for non-- payment of land revenue and it was ordered that the amount be affected as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners thereupon filed a civil suit praying for a perpetual injunction. The main question that fell for decision in the said suit was whether the petitioners had not been heard before the demand was created against them which was being realised as arrears of land revenue. The learned trial Court after referring the relevant evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were heard and given a chance to state Their point of view with regard to the matter relating to the creation of demand of arrears against them.
3. He, therefore, dismissed the suit by his judgment dated25-7-1973. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, who held that even if no notice of demand had been served on the petitioners there was evidence that they had been summoned by the Tehsildar and bad been appearing before -him and had failed to produce the receipt regarding payment made by them to the Lambardar. The accounts had been made known to them and they bad admitted the correctness of the accounts. In these circumstances, it could not be said that they had been condemned unheard before the creation of demand against them, or that the accounts had not been finally settled in their presence. This appeal was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 29-11-1973. The petitioner then moved the High Court by way of a revision. The learned Judge in the High Court held that there was a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff petitioners had been heard by the Tehsildar before the recovery proceedings were initiated. It appears that before the High Court a number of receipts were produced and it was sub--mitted that land revenue had been duly paid by the petitioners to the Lambardar. The learned Judge in the High Court, with regard to this aspect of the matter, observed that these receipts were nor proved nor were they put to the Lambardar D.
4. W. 2, to whom the payment was allegedly made in cross-- examination when appeared as D. W. 2.
5. The revision petition was, accord--ingly, dismissed in limine on 27-1-1975. Hence the petitions for leave to appeal.
6. Mr. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of these petitions has reiterated some of the objections that were urged before the Courts below, namely, that the petitioners had not been heard by the Tehsildar nor the arrears actually determined. Additionally, he submitted that the recovery certificate had not been signed by any revenue officer. Hence the recovery proceedings were bad on that account.
7. So far as the first two submissions are concerned namely, that the petitioners were not heard nor the amount of arrears actually ascertained and' determined suffice it to say that these pleas have been fully discussed by the! Courts below and repelled. As regards the point that the recovery certificate was not signed by any revenue officer, this point does not appear to have been raised before any of the Courts below and we are not inclined to allow this point to be urged before us for the first time. We are, however, satisfied that the B petitioners were fully aware of the fact that it was being alleged that they had not paid the land revenue and that the account in this respect was settled when they were called by the Tehsildar. The procedure followed may have been somewhat informal but the fact remains that they were fully aware of the allega--tions being levelled against them and that they were given a chance to settle the matter with the authorities.
8. In this view of the matter we do not find any ground for interference. These petitions must, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.