Briefly stated the facts are that Haji A.I Akbar Khan predecessor-in---interest of respondents Nos.5 to 10 filed an ejectment against Karamdad predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 l to 16.
Order of ejectment was passed by the Tehsildar, Murree on 29-9-1970 and an appeal filed against this order was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Murree. A 'revision petition filed against the said order was accepted by the Additional Commissioner vide order, dated 24-2-1973 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Murree for deciding the same afresh. On 11-10-1973, a fresh ejectment petition filed by Haji A.I Akbar Khan was accepted by the Tehsildar. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Murree vide order, dated 25-5-1974. He, however, remanded the case to the Tehsildar for determination of compensation. Thereafter, civil litigation ensued between the parties which went up to level of the High Court and the petitioner remained unsuccessful throughout the said litigation. On 28-2-1994, Tehsildar, Murree dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of compensation. Against this order, a revision petition was filed which was also dismissed by y the Additional Commissioner vide order, dated 15-4-1997.
A revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Member Judicial-III, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 20-12-1999. Hence the instant writ petition.
2. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Tehsildar while dismissing their application on 23-2-1994 had not conducted any investigation as required by section 70 of Punjab Tenancy Act read with Rule 6 of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, that he was also not given any notice of rejection of his application on 28-2-1994 and that Tehsildar, Murree had no jurisdiction to pass order, dated 28-2-1994 as he had ceased to have jurisdiction after expiry of 60 days as held in Muhammad Rafi and others v. Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Sargodha and others 1981 SCM R 1181.
4. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 20-12-1999 passed by the Judicial Member-III, Board of Revenue reveals that all these contentions have been looked into by the said forum while passing the said order. It is also admitted position that the petitioners have been coming in possession of the suit land for the last more than 40 years and they have not paid even a single penny to the landlord/respondents.
5. Since the petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of suit land for four decades without paying a single penny to the landlords/respondents Nos. 11 to 16, so all the Courts were justified in holding that petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. The impugned orders have been passed) absolutely in accordance with law. The writ petition is devoid of any force) and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.