' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 28-5-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,2305 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24-2-1994 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 4-1-1986 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), D.G.Khan was dismissed, dismissing the same in limited.
2. The brief facts 'are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 25 acres situated in Lot No,7, Chak No,557/TDA in open auction on 23-2-1961. They paid part of the price. However, the petitioners failed to pay the balance price. The land was resumed on 1-6-1967. But, upon filing of appeal, the Commissioner by his order dated 13-4-1971 set aside the above resumption on the condition that the petitioners shall clear the dues. They again defaulted and made a request for further time, which request was turned down by the Commissioner on 6-7-1980. The above order was impugned by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue through a revision, but the same was dismissed on 2-9-1980. The review petition also failed on 25-11-1982. Then the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition. Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that in terms of Memo. No,3138/75/5778-TH-1 dated 28-11- 1973 the petitioners were liable to pay first installment by 15-7-1974 and thereafter other installments by 15th June of the subsequent years and thus the resumption of the suit land on the ground of default was not warranted by law.
4. The above contention is misconceived inasmuch as the land was resumed on 1-6-1967 on the ground of default in payment of the price. The same was restored on 13-4-1971 on the condition that the petitioners would clear the dues. Since the petitioners failed to clear the same, the above resumption remained intact. This had happened prior to the issuance of the above memo. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot press into service the aforesaid memo. Which cannot be applied retrospectively to the cases in which action for resumption was already taken and acted upon. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity Leave is refused.