' This is a revision petition against the order of the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, dated 22-1- 1985, dismissing their revision petition against the order of Land Commissioner, Multan dated 10-7- 1984. The Land Commissioner, Multan had in his order dismissed on merits as well as on grounds of limitation the petitioners' appeal against Deputy Land Commissioner Sahiwal's order dated 19-5- 1980 ordering resumption of land measuring 738 Kanals 7 Marlas equivalent to 5981 P.I.Us. In Chak No, 162/9-L, Tehsil Chichawatni from the respondent/declarant Jehan Khan under the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
2. Muhammad Hafeez and 8 others, sitting tenants on the land in question who claim to have been allotted the land after its resumption from the respondent Jehan Khan under section 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 filed an application through their counsel under 0. I, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for being impleaded in the proceedings as respondents. The petitioners and the respondent did not express any objection to their request and their request was, therefore, accepted and they were impleaded as respondents in the case.
3. I have heard the counsels for the petitioners at great length. The petitioners prima facie do not have any locus standi in the proceedings relating to the declaration filed by the respondent Jehan Khan before the Land Commission authorities since any agreement to sell part of the land in question by the respondent/declarant Jehan Khan to the petitioners which was not honoured by him as claimed by the latter was a private dispute between the parties and the petitioners' remedy was to file a civil suit against the respondent in the relevant civil Court. In fact it appears from the petitioners' own admission that such a suit was at one stage filed by the petitioners but it was later withdrawn for want of permission of the Board of Revenue. The counsels for the petitioners, on the other hand, argued that they had been adversely affected by the Deputy Land Commissioner's order dated 17-5-1980 since that order had treated the land in question as part of the declarant's holding on the crucial date and had consequently ordered its resumption under sections 7(5) and 9(2) of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 when in fact, the Deputy Land Commissioner should have excluded this land from the declarant's holding in view of the subsisting agreement to sell claimed by the petitioners, and as such affected parties the petitioners had a right to appeal or file revision petition against the Deputy Land Commissioner's order in question before the higher Land Commission authorities. The counsels laboured the point that the matter was one for the Land Commission authorities to decide and not for the land revenue authorities under the Colonies Act or any other revenue law.
4. I have given full consideration to the arguments of the counsels for the petitioners but cannot accept them as valid. The land in question had been leased to the respondent under Tubewell Sinking Scheme under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and, therefore, could not be transferred to the petitioners or any one else without prior permission of the competent authority under section 19 of the Colonization Act. The declarant was not competent to sell or agree to sell this land to any one. Further, even if the counsels for the petitioners' argument that the land in question should not have been held as part of the respondent/declarant's holding on the crucial date by the Deputy Land Commissioner, is accepted, even then the petitioners have no case since it was State land which reverted to the State for non-fulfilment of conditions and the petitioners should seek remedy, if any, in this connection under the Colonization Act. Finally, the petitioners themselves did not take any action to file any revision/appeal against the Deputy Land Commissioner's order dated 19-5-1980 even under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 within a period of 20 days prescribed under the Act and their appeal filed before the Land Commissioner in 1984 four years later could not be countenanced on grounds of limitation alone.
5. For reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph I decline to interfere with the Chief Land Commissioner's order dated 22-1-1985 which has rightly refused to interfere with the Land Commissioner Multan's order dated 16-7-1984 which became final on grounds of limitation alone. If the petitioners have any claim regarding allotment of the land in question to them under the Colonization Act on grounds of the declarant's agreement with them, they should seek their remedy under that Act before the relevant competent authority. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.