ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. This order shall dispose of three petitioners (C, P. S. L. A. Nos. 750/81, 758/81 and 759/81), as all of them assail identical orders passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and involve the same points. The petitioners also challenge, in the alternative orders dated 19-a-1981 by a learned single judge of the same High Court, which gave rise to the aforementioned Intra-Court Appeals.
2. The petitioners were granted lease of land under the 10 years Scheme under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The lease expired in 1978, They were then given further lease which was to expire in 1983. A Notification was, however, issued by the Government whereby it was decided that the holders of temporary leases can apply for proprietary rights in respect of the land taken on lease by them and they will be granted the said rights to the extent of the subsistence holding i.e. 12-- acres. The petitioners filed separate writ petitions before the High Court. A reading of the prayer clause of the writ petitions shows that the petitions were directed against the refusal of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to allow proprietary rights in the land in question to the petitioners. The writ petitions were rejected by the High Court on 19-4-1981. All the petitioners thereupon filed I. C. As.
In the same High Court which were dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court by the impugned order which reads as follows: - "As any order passed under the Colonization of Government Lands Act is appealable, revisable and reviewable, this I: C. A., is not maintainable under section 3 of the Lands Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It is accord--ingly dismissed."
3. It is not denied that an appeal lay against the orders in question passed by respondents 2 and 3 under the Colonization of Government Land Act.An I. C. A., is, therefore, barred by section 3 of the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972. As such we find no flaw in the order of the High Court rejecting the I. C.
As. In question.
4. As to the orders of the Lahore High Court dated 19-4-1981, dismissing his writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioners did not put forward any argument raising a question of law.
5. Leave is consequently refused in all the three petitions.