ORDER SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)- Mr. Raza Ali, learned Member (Colonies), disposed of six revision petitions preferred against order dated 4th of September, 1994 of Addl.
Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore vide his order dated 22nd of March, 1995. The petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners in revision petition before him had unlawfully handed over possession of their respective tenancies to some other persons. It was held that the transaction was un-rectifiable. The present review petition has been filed against this order of learned Member (Colonies) with a delay of 11 months, 12 days. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been appended whereby the plea that they were not heard and as such time cannot run against them has been cited as explanation for condonation of delay.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that-the petitioners were sub tenants of the original allottees and as such they had a right to be heard. Since they were not heard, a grave miscarriage of justice has been done by the impugned order.
3. I have given carefully consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. By relinquishing their tenancies unlawfully and handing over the land |o unauthorised persons, the petitioners in revision petition had lost their entitlement to possess the tenancies. The learned Member therefore rightly dismissed the petitions. It is a settled proposition of law that an illicit cultivator has no right under the law and as such the learned Member was not obliged to either summon the present petitioners or to afford opportunity of hearing to them. As per law, he directed that Tawan should be imposed and recovered from unlawful occupants of the subject land. These observations are being made not to supplement the legal validity of the order of my learned predecessor but as a narration of facts.
4. No ingredient of Section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is involved in the grounds of review petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine which is accordingly ordered.