' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 1-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was allotted State land under the Grow More Food Scheme on 17-12-1956. He obtained possession of the land on 17-1-1957. By an order dated 29-3-1963, the Collector terminated the allotment on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to receive proprietary rights therein. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. It was dismissed on 25- 5-1966 by the Additional Commissioner as barred by time. Immediately thereafter the land covered by the allotment was given to respondents No,4 to 8 under a permanent scheme framed for the settlement of Islamabad evictees. However that may be, the petitioner preferred a time- barred revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the termination of his allotment. This was dismissed on 14-6-1967 again on the ground of limitation. On 17-5-1969, the petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the orders of the Revenue authorities. This too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. One of the grounds which has prevailed with the High Court in dismissing the Constitution petition is that the petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing his remedy. Thus, not only his appeal and revision petition before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were out of time but he took almost two years in approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction after the dismissal of his revision petition by the Board of Revenue.
4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by the Collector in his absence and without notice to him and therefore he could not prefer the appeal before the Commissioner within the specified period. The High Court took notice of this contention but rejected it with the observation that even if the date of his knowledge about the cancellation of his allotment was taken as a starting point for limitation there was nothing on the record to show that he had preferred his appeal within the prescribed period beginning from the said date.
However that may be, there is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not file his revision petition before the Board of Revenue within time or took almost two years in approaching the High Court. This is thus not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.