' Brief facts of the case are that State land comprising Khasra Nos.27/13/2-14 to 25 (12 Acres 4 Kanals) situated in Chak No,81/M, Tehsil Shujabad, District Multan was leased out to the petitioners from Kharif 1975 to R bi 1980. Their request for the grant of proprietary rights under Notification dated 3-9-1979 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 30-1-1981. Their appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Multan Division on 20-4-1982.
Thereafter the petitioners took the matter to the Board of Revenue, but failed.
2. On 3-9-1985 the petitioners moved the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for the extension of the lease but their request was turned down on 10-4-1986 and it was ordered that the disputed lot should be resumed from them. That order was challenged before the Commissioner in a time- barred appeal (2 years 8 months and 23 days) which was dismissed on merits as well as being badly time-barred on 28-8-1989. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Board of Revenue's Notification Nos.118-85/144- CLI, dated 17-1-1985 and No, 7402-86/3901-CLI, dated 19-5-1987 and contended that extension in the existing leases of the State agricultural land which was waste and was on 5 years lease and had been brought under cultivation for the first time, were to be extended automatically for two years with increase in rent. Both the Courts below have not decided this material point of jurisdiction and the impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record, the Notification dated 17-1-1985 is applicable to leases of State agricultural land which was waste and was on 5 years' lease period and brought under cultivation for the first time, Whereas the petitioners had been leased out Lot No,35 with effect from Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1980 and their lease had expired in Rabi 1980. They failed to apply for extension of the lease in time and therefore cannot claim the benefit of Notification dated 17-1-1985. For the same reasons the Notification No,7402-86/3901-CLI, dated 19-5-1987 does not help them.
5. As regards the learned counsel's contention that extension in lease is automatic it may be observed that in Colony Districts, such as Multan, there is a very large number of tenancies of State land under multiplicity of Schemes issued from time to time. The long-standing practice obtaining in colony offices has to be kept in view. All the paper work and files of such leases are handled manually. The record is not computerized and it is not possible for the staff in the Colony Offices to check the particulars of each and every lease themselves and initiate action thereon without receiving an application from the concerned tenants or a specific order from their officers to process the case. It is therefore in the interests of the tenants to apply for extension of lease so that their case could be processed and extension granted within the stipulated time. This view is supported by para. 4 of the Notification dated 19-5-1987 which requires the tenants to exercise their refusal to have the leases examined on the terms contained therein in writing.
6. The present revision petition is time-barred by three years one month and 14 days, although the petitioners were present before .The Commissioner, Multan Division, when the impugned order was made. There is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Even otherwise, I do not see any justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed in limine as time-barred as well as on merits.