' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Sultan Ali and Muhammad petitioners want this Court to declare orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to the resumption of the land to be illegal and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the land measuring 160 kanals situated in Chak No, 424/A/TDA Tehsil Leiah was auctioned in favour of the petitioners for Rs, 21,000. On 19-6- 1962 the petitioners deposited Rs, 3,500 i.e, 1/6th of the auction price and got the possession. Since the petitioners failed to pay the instalments of the land, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resumed the.
Land in favour of the State on 30-5-1967. After about 9 years, the petitioners challenged the resumption of the land through appeal which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Multan Division on 24-6-1979 declaring the same to be time-barred. The petitioners went in revision before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, and the same was also dismissed on 9-12-1980. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends (i) that no demand notice was issued by the respondent No, 2 and that respondent No, I passed the order of resumption without issuing any notice tothe petitioners and as such they have been condemned unheard (ii) that since the order of resumption was not conveyed to the petitioners they could not file appeal within time; (iii) that the learned Commissioner and the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue had arbitrarily refused the offer of the petitioners to deposit the arrears ; and (iv) that the impugned judgments of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue appears to have been written by his Reader and only two lines were added by him towards the end of the order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me I find that the petitioners are admittedly defaulters, they did not pay any instalments after 19-6-1962. As for contentions I and 2, I am of the opinion that the petitioners being the debtors it was their duty to seek the creditor and to pay or tender the instalments in time. I find from the orders dated 30.5- 1967 of the Colonization Officer that notices were issued to the purchasers. The name of Sultan All petitioner is mentioned at serial No,
13. It was, therefore, the duty of the petitioners to be vigilant and watchful. The Colonization Officer was not legally bound to convey them the order dated 30-5- 1967.
' As for contention No, 3, it appears that the land stood resumed since 30-5-1967 and the offer, if any, was made before the Commissioner for the first tithe through appeal on 22-6-1967. In the circumstances the learned Commissioner or the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue was not legally bound to accept the offer. There is nothing on the record to show that the Commissioner or the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue had arbitrarily refused the offer of the petitioners to deposit the arrears. No one else can be blamed for the default except the petitioners. I am afraid the presumption of truth being attached to the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue it cannot be said that the impugned judgment was not dictated by him and as such contention No, 4 also fails. I further find that there is nothing on the record to substantiate the allegation that the major portion of the. Judgment was not written by the Court and was written by the 'Reader'.
5. I have gone through the impugned judgments. The learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal as being time-barred. The appeal against the order of resumption was filed after about nine years. It appears that no application for the extension of the time was given and as such no exception can be taken. I find that it was within the authority of the learned Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation. As for the order of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue I find nothing wrong with the same. The learned Member, Board of Revenue in para. No, 3 of the order observed that "I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have also gone through the impugned order. In view of the fact that the lot in dispute stood duly resumed since 30.5-1967 for non-payment of the arrears and also that the appeal before the Commissioner was dismissed being time-barred, I see no justification for interference. The revision petition is consequently dismissed".
6. To my mind this order has not been passed without lawful authority. Even otherwise the petitioners being defaulters are not entitled to any assistance by the Courts. This petition also suffers from laches. The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue had finally disposed of the matter on 9.12-1980, but the same has been challenged before this Court vide this writ petition after a lapse of 11 years. For what has been stated above I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine,