' This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, dated 28-4-1986, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of District Collector, Sahiwal, dated 2-1-1986. The latter had resumed Square Nos. 2/21 to 23 Square Nos. 5/1 to 3, 8 to 12, 20, Square Nos. 6/15, 16, 17/1 measuring 19 Kanal 17 Marlas situated in Chak No. 57/D from the petitioner which had earlier been granted to him under Notification, dated 3-9-1979.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had been allowed proprietary rights of the disputed land for Rs.45,100 on 10-10-1982 after being declared eligible under Government Notification No. 3215-79/ 3973-CL.I, dated 3-9-1979. The petitioner did not deposit any instalment towards the price of land and, therefore, District Collector issued him a show-cause notice under section 24 of the Government Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, but was allowed to deposit the defaulted instalments, on 20-6-1983 with interest/penal interest and a penalty of Rs.5,000 within 2 months from the date of order, failing which the land would stand resumed. The petitioner, however, did not comply with the orders and the D.C./Collector finally resumed the land, on 2-1- 1986. The petitioner appealed against the order but the Additional Commissioner rejected on merits as well as on limitation. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He alleged that during pendency of the case before District Collector he had been told to next date of hearing, on 2-4-1986, but when he appeared on 2-4-1986, he was told that his case was not fixed for the said date and that he should enquire about the case a few days later. He claimed that when he again approached the Court on 19-4-1986, he was told that his case had already been dismissed, on 2-1-1986, and the land was resumed. He argued that non-payment of dues was a rectifiable breach of condition and the petitioner was prepared to pay the instalments with fine in lump sum. He claimed that he had always tried to deposit the instalments but the concerned staff had not issued him the challan. The Additional Commissioner had dismissed his appeal without considering the arguments of the petitioner for the late filing of the appeal.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. Non-payment is a rectifiable breach of conditions and the petitioner is prepared to pay the dues in a lump sum. He is. Therefore, allowed to deposit the outstandings dues as directed by the District Collector by 1-10-1986, failing which the resumption order would hold good.