AJMAL MIAN, J.--This petition is directed, against the orders dated 24th December, 1979, 13th March 1980 and 28th November, 1981 passed by Respondents Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of above petition are that the petitioner under an order dated 18th May, 1965 obtained the lease of Naqabooli Surveys Nos. 57/24-37, 58/13-26 and Block No. C/11- V of N.C. Survey No. 52 (hereinafter referred to as land), measuring 50 acres situated in Deh Narathar, Tapo Songal, Taluka and District Karachi for "Wahr Chahi" cultivation for the year 1965-66 and thereafter annual leases were granted till 2973, whereafter 10 years lease was granted. While the 10 years' lease was operative, the 'Respondent No. 3 by his aforesaid impugned order dated 24th Dec. 1979 cancelled the lease of the land on the-ground that there had been breach of condition No.6 of the lease, as the petitioner failed to develop the same. The appellant being aggrieved by tire above order filed Appeal No. 37/1980 before Respondent No. 2, which was dismissed by his impugned order dated 13th March, 1980. Against the above two orders the petitioner filed revision (Case No. S.R.O.R.-666/1979) which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 by his impugned order dated 28th November, 1981: The petitioner:, being aggrieved by the above three orders, has filed the present. Petition.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice as provided under the Punjab Colonization Act; secondly the lease could not have been canceled without first calling upon the petitioner to rectify the breach within, reasonable time and thirdly factually the petitioner had developed the land in as much he sunk a well.
4. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi learned A.A.G. Has urged that proper show-cause notice was served before passing of the impugned orders, that the petitioner had not carried out any development work and that in any case 10 years period for which the lease was granted has expired in 1982-83.
5. From the material on record we have noticed that the respondent No. 3 has not produced any copy of the show-cause notice, nor it has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that any notice under Section 24 of the Punjab Colonization Act, calling upon the petitioner to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, was served on the petitioner, nor ground No. 4 of the petition in which it has been averred by the petitioner that he had sunk the well and had also developed the land, has been specifically denied, though there -are general averments in the counter-affidavit.
6. In our view it will be fit and proper to remand the case to Respondent No. 3 with the directions to hear the petitioner on the question, whether he was served with a show-cause notice and a notice under S. 24 of the Punjab Colonization Act, and also to examine the question, whether factually before the cancellation of the lease the petitioner had sunk a well on the land, as alleged in ground No. 4 of the petition.
7. As regards Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi learned A.A.-G.'s submission that the lease period has expired in 1982-83, it will suffice to observe that the above question is not in issue in the present petition and it will be open to the Department as well as to the petitioner to urge whatever legal pleas are available to both of them. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi also wishes that we should clarify that it will be open to the Department to take action in accordance with law. In our view no such' clarification is needed. Every party has a right to take action in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms