1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-Ghulam Farid was allotted State land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in the year 1956. The Governor's Inspection Team found that Ghulam Farid had not deposited rent due from him from Kharif 1957 to Kharif 1968. This was brought to the notice of the Collector who cancelled the allotment on the 21st of May 1973. However on the application of one Mohammad Aslam the Collector made further inquiry into the matter and heard Ghulam Farid as well. He found that Ghulam Farid had failed to pay the rent due from him up to Rabi 1973, that he had failed to cultivate the land and that he also did not reside in the village. The Collector therefore by his order dated the 24th of May 1973 upheld the order of cancellation passed earlier on the 21st of February 1973.
2. Ghulam Farid went up in appeal against the order dated the 21st of May 1973 on the ground that he had been condemned unheard but the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed his appeal on the 15th of September 1973. Ghulam Farid filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and his prayer for interim injunction was accepted on the condition of depositing the arrears of rent which he deposited on the 25th of October 1973. The Board of Revenue however by its order dated the 4th of February 1974 held that besides being defaulter the petitioner had also failed to cultivate the land. It therefore dismissed the revision.
3. Ghulam Farid filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order dated the 4th of February 1974 of the Board of Revenue but a learned Single Judge, in the High Court by his order dated the 22nd of May 1974 dismissed the writ petition in limine. Ghulam Farid has thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. After hearing Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned Advocate for the petitioner we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner was admittedly a defaulter in the payment of rent and his allotment had therefore rightly been cancelled. Notice under section 24 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was not required to be served on him according to section 27 of the Act but even then the said notice was served on him. He had been heard in appeal and revision and he could not make any grievance of the, ex parte order passed against him on the 21st of May 1973. As a matter of fact another order dated the 24th of May 1973 had been passed against him by the Collector after hearing him and he has not at all questioned that order uptill now. There is thus no merit in this petition which hereby dismissed.