' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Hussain Bakhsh, Sharif and Ata Muhammad petitioners want this Court to declare the order of the Colonization Officer/Collector, Leiah, dated 27th May, 1967 and the orders passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The fact leading up to this petition in brief are that the petitioners were allowed Lot No, 7 in Chak No, 278-A/T D A, Tehsil Leiah in the year 1954. On 27th May, 1967, the lot was resumed by the Colonization Officer/Collector Leiah on the ground that despite notice, they had not paid the instalments. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, challenged this order of resumption before the Commissioner. Multan Division, which was dismissed on 5th October, 1981. Still dissatisfied the petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner before the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab through a revision which was dismissed on 11th February, 1982. The petitioners filed a review petition which also met the same fate. Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice of resumption or for the payment of the instalment was given to the petitioners and as such they were condemned unheard. He further submits that the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab had allowed other persons in a different case (Annexure 'F') to deposit the instalment and had restored the lots resumed on account of nonpayment of instalments.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the material before me I find that the petitioners paid one instalment and thereafter did not pay the instalments for several years Lot No, 7 was resumed on 27th May. 1967 after due service of the notice by passing at conspicuous place of his lot. He was heard by the learned Commissioner as well as by the learned Member (Colonies). Board of Revenue. He failed to produce any evidence of his possession as done by the petitioners of other case (Annexure 'F') and as such his case was distinguishable. The respondents 1 to 3 have applied their minds to the legal and factual aspect of the matter.
Admittedly, the petitioners are defaulters. They did not care to deposit the instalments for 13/14 years and as such are not entitled to any assistance by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction.
' For what has been stated above, there is no force in the petition and the same is dismissed in limine.