ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 28-2-1981, dismissing their Civil Revision.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioners/predecessors-in-interest had been allotted some land by the respondent (That Development Authority) under the Tube-well Scheme, on 12-3-1955, on certain conditions. Since they did not fulfill some of the conditions a notice was issued to the original allottees and the land was then cancelled. The facts thereupon, filed a civil suit against the said cancellation. The suit, however, was dismissed by the trial Court on 12-12-1979. The learned District Judge, on 22-12-1980, also dismissed their appeal. They then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court, which to met the same fate vide the impugned order.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that notices were issued by the Department against dead person namely their predecessors-in-interest, who could nor naturally be served. As such the order of cancellation, which was passed behind their back was bad in law. It is, however, apparent from observation in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned District Judge that some of the petitioners were actually present before the concerned authority, when the question of cancellation of allotment was considered. We also notice that the petitioners did not even press the point and did not get an issue framed on this question by the trial Court in this view of the matter we_ see no force in this petition, which is consequently dismissed.