1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-4-1989 has been assailed by means of two different petitions for leave to appeal.
2. ' Sadiq son of Wahab, respondent in Civil Petition No, 794/89, invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court in which he challenged the order dated 7-8-1986 passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore.
3. ' The petition was accepted by a learned Judge who found the order impugned in the Constitution petition violative of the provisions of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and as such was not legally maintainable. That order was declared to be without lawful authority. Constitution petition was allowed.
4. ' Aggrieved by that order, Jahana filed an Intra-Court Appeal. The appeal was filed after the limitation had expired. An explanation was given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The Bench found that to be unsatisfactory. No sufficient cause was shown for the condonation of delay.
5. The Bench observed: "Apart altogether from the above position that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of having been filed beyond the period of limitation the contention raised on behalf of the appellant also does not appear to have force."
6. ' The other petition (C.P. 803/89) is by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore, in which leave is being sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, referred to above. The Member (Colonies) felt aggrieved because it was his order which was set aside by the learned Judge and whose order was confirmed by the Letters Patent Bench after a thorough and detailed discussion regarding merits and entitlement of the parties.
7. This petition merits dismissal on the short ground that against the order of the learned single Judge the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue did not file any Intra-Court Appeal. Nevertheless, it was observed by the learned Judge:-- "In the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner obtained the tenancy rights under the Grow More Food Scheme in respect of the State land in question on 23-11-1956. At that time, admittedly, he was owner of land measuring 19 kanals and 14 marlas in Chak No, 356/GB. Thus no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by him when he acquired the tenancy rights in respect of the State land in question under Grow More Food Scheme."
8. For the foregoing reasons the learned Judge held that the order passed by Member (Colonies) was violative of the provisions of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands, (Punjab) Act, 1912 and as such was not legally maintainable.
9. ' There is no question of law of public importance to be examined in any one of these petitions.
10. Hence both the petitions are dismissed.