1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition is barred by four days, and the delay sought to be explained by the fact that the petitioners had first filed an appeal under clause10 of the Letters Patent, which was not found to be maintainable by the learned judges of the Division Bench On the authority of Nazar Muhammad v. Mst. Shahzada Begum (PLD 1974 SC 22), we would condone this delay and proceedto consider the petition on merits.
2. This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 13-2-75, dismissing in limine writ petition filed by the petitioners in respect of certain agricultural land situate in Chak No. 590/T. D. A. In Tehsil Kot Addu of the Muzaffargarb District. The petitioners had also filed an appeal under the Letters Patent, but the same was dismissed by a Division. Bench of the High Court by its order dated 4-4-75 on the ground that this vas not maintainable ire view of the provisions contained in the proviso to subsection (2) of' section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972. The learned counsel does not challenge the correctness of this order.
3. The relevant facts are that one Sajawal was the owner of proprietary land which was acquired by the Thal Development Authority under the provisions of the Thal Development Act, 1949, and by way of regrant he was given land measuring 102 kanals in two Chaks bearing Nos. 587/T. D. A. And 592/T. D. A. He sold this land to Hasan Muhammad (Petitioner No. 1) on 7-9-56. On 18-9-73, Hasan Muhammad made an application before the Extra-Assistant Colonisation Officer, Leiah, requesting that as ha was already holding land in Chak No.590/T. D. A., his holding in villages No- 587/T. D. A.
4. And 592/T. D.A, may also be exchange with State land in Chak No. 590/T. D. A. This request was granted by the said officer by his order dated 28-2-74.
5. On the 19th of June 1974, the land obtained by Hasan Muhammad was sold by him in favour of petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Ramzan for a sum of Re. 35,000. Respondent No. 3, Fazal Muhammad filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, challenging the order of the Extra-- Assistant Colonisation Officer, dated the 28th of February 1914, and asserting preferential claim to the grant of the said land situate in Char No. 590/T. D. A. The exchange was set aside by the Commissioner by his order fat d the 14th of October 1974, and an appeal filed by the petitioners before the a Board of Revenue was dismissed by a learned Member by his order dated the 15th of January 1975.
6. The learned Judge in the High Court has upheld the appellate orders of the Divisional Commissioner as well as of the Member, Board of Revenue pin the ground that there was no provision in this Thal Develop--ment Act for this kind of exchange of proprietary land with State land.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the learned ,Judge is in error in taking this view, as he has ignored the provisions con--tained in clause (2) of section 21 of the Thal Development Act, which authorizes the Thal Development Authority to frame a scheme or schemes for 'the ,acquisition by purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise of any land or interest tad land situated in any local area in the Thal.
8. The contention is obviously misconceived as section 21 contemplates the framing of a scheme for the purposes enumerated therein, and notindividual acts of exchange of the kind sanctioned by the Extra-Assistant Colonisation Officer in this case. It is clear that after the land had been granted to Sajawal by the That Development Authority sometime before '1986 he had become its proprietor and he sold the same in that capacity to petitionerNo. 1, Hasan Muhammad. From 7-9-56 to 18-9-
73. i.e.. a period of over seventeen years, Hasan Muhammad was content to retain this proprietary land in the two Chaks in question. There is clearly not provision in the Thal Development Act permitting an exchange of proprietary land with State land for the purpose of consolidating the entire holding of a proprietor in a third village. It will be seen that the land purchased by Hasan Muhammad was situated in Chaks Nos. 587/T. D. A. And 559/, T. D. A. But he obtained equivalent land in exchange in a third Chak bearing No. 590/T. D. A. The transaction not being sanctioned by any provision of law, the Divisional Commissioner and the Member, Board,f Revenue, were right in striking it down.
9. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.