' This petition has been filed for the review of my order dated 12-2-77 by which the request of the petitioner for the deposit of arrears of price was rejected.
2. Brief facts that the petitioner surrendered 72K-13M of land equal to 350 P. I. Us. Under M. L. R. 89/91 in Mauza Goth Raza, Tehsil Ahmadpur East. He opted to purchase this land under the Scheme. The price was to be paid in 30 equated half-yearly instalments. The petitioner paid two instalments. Subsequently such purchasers were allowed adjustment of their compensation against the price of purchased land. Accordingly on 24- 5-65, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, for the adjustment of his compensation. His request was allowed and a reference was made on 18-11-65 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur. Thereafter the petitioner kept quiet presuming that necessary amount would be adjusted against the purchase price. On 22-4-76 he requested for the execution of a sale-deed in his name. On the examination of record however it came to light that adjustment had not been made against the compensation book. The petitioner therefore offered to make cash payment. Since the deposit of arrears of price in respect of surrendered land had been banned by the Board of Revenue after 15.7-75, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the case to the Commissioner with the observation that the petitioner was not at fault because he had offered to get the price adjusted against compensation available in his compensation book. The Commissioner referred the case to the Board of Revenue who rejected it vide order dated 12-2-77.
The petitioner has sought review of this order.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard which is against the principle of natural justice. A reference was also made to an order dated 24-4-76 of M.
S. Chaudhary Member (Colonies) passed in R.
0. R. No, 387/75-76 in which permission was granted to pay the arrears even after 15-7-75.
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the relevant record. The petitioner has produced a copy of office note submitted to the Deputy Commissioner on 8-9-76 stating that the petitioner had applied in time for the adjustment of price against his compensation book, and that if no intimation was received from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, regarding adjustment of price then the petitioner would not be blamed for non-payment. This document was not before me when order sought to be reviewed was passed. It was not shown to me to be a case of deliberate default but a case in which the petitioner offered to pay the price in time but necessary adjustment could not be made due to inefficiency on the part of the dealing staff. In these circumstances, I think it a fit case for review. Accordingly I allow this petition and review my order dated 12-2-77 and direct that the petitioner should pay all the arrears alongwith penal interest within a period of two months. If he fails to do so then the land would remain resumed.