MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- According to the petitioners land measuring 18 Kanals and 3 Marlas situate in Mauza Kasur Khas, Tehsil and District Kasur was in cultivating possession of the petitioners for more than 60 years; the Government of West Pakistan (Colonies Department) vide Letter No.3712-64/2189-CVI dated 31-7-1964 decided to give proprietary rights to the tenants of the State Land who were in continuous possession of the land allotted to them; the petitioners applied, under this Notification for the purchase of the land in their possession; the Collector vide his order dated 30-11-1970 granted proprietary rights to the petitioners and allowed the sale in their favour. It is stated that the petitioners started paying the price of the land and deposited the entire price between 21-2-1971 to 1-6-1979. However, the Border Allotment Committee, vide order dated 27-7- 1978 allotted some land including that of the petitioners to respondent No.3 Lt.-Col. Jamshed Ahmad Khan. The petitioners objected to the allotment of their land by an application to the Border Area Allotment Committee but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19-7-1980. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was withdrawn by them subsequently allegedly on the assurance of the Assistant Advocate---General representing the State that the eligible tenants would be given alternate land, but this never materialized and the petitioners filed another writ petition against the order of the Border Area Allotment Committee dated 27-7-1978 and 19-7-1980 which was dismissed in limine by the learned High Court Judges vide the impugned order dated 17-11-1986.
2. Now leave is sought by the petitioners to appeal against the impugned order on the grounds that they were condemned unheard when the land in their possession was allotted to respondent No.3 vide order dated 27-7-1978 which order is void and of no legal effect as the petitioners had already paid 16 instalments and only two instalments remained to be paid; that the principle that no person should be condemned unheard was not taken into consideration by the learned High Court Judges; and that the learned High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the earlier Writ Petition No. 616/R of 1980 was withdrawn by the petitioners on 28-1-1985, and therefore, subsequent petition was not maintainable.
3.We have examined the grievance of the petitioners and see that the learned High Court Judges have considered this question and gave a finding, in the impugned judgment, as under: "The learned Advocate-General on the basis of instruction: imparted to him by Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, under his Letter No. 2037-8602149-TH-IV dated 13-11-1986 inform. The Bench that the petitioners did not contact the Board of Revenue and that in case they apply, their application for allotment of alternate land shall be considered on merits, in accordance with law."