1982 PLP 149 (SCMR)

Taj Muhammad Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General (Pb.) and Sh. Ijaz Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th February 1981. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The land from the name of the petitioner was resumed on account of his not having complied with the terms of lease, in neither bringing the requisite area under cultivation and nor paying the lagan. Having failed at department levels, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 2565/80 which was heard alongwith similar other cases and was dismissed by the High Court vide its order, dated 31‑5‑1980. The petitioner has come up in a petition for leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

2. The first point argued by the learned counsel was that no notice in terms of the conditions of lease had been served on his client and therefore the resumption without the aforesaid was without lawful authority. The contention has no merit. All the colonization authorities attended to this Matter and held that the notice or notice were duly issued and served on the petitioner. The same was the finding of the High Court who found nothing to disagree with the departmental authorities on the subject. The point raised being essentially of fact cannot be taken exception to before us especially when it suffers from no omission or misreading of evidence.

3. The next point argued was, that under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, V of 1912, the land cannot be resumed in case of a rectifiable breach unless the defaulter is given first opportunity to rectify the alleged breach and he fails to do the needful. It was argued that in the instant case no such notice was issued to the petitioner as above mentioned. The finding of issuance of notice being one of fact has not been found erroneous by us in any manner and so far as the question of giving opportunity to rectify the breach is concerned the same again was complied with by the issuance of the aforesaid notice. Another thing to be mentioned is that apart from non‑payment of dues, the petitioner had committed a breach of not bringing the land under cultivation. This point was examined by the High Court in detail and the departmental view was maintained in that respect too, wherein it had been held that the petitioner had really defaulted in non cultivation of the land for a long period and had not fulfilled the requisite condition on the subject aforesaid which in our opinion, at such a late stage when action was taken had become really unrectifiable on his part. Nothing has been argued before us with regard to this precise breach, though in the High Court certain excuses were put forward regarding lack of water, etc. which were neither accepted by that Court, nor earlier by the departmental authorities.

4. The result is that learned counsel has not been able to make out any case showing the order of the High Court or of the departmental authorities as to be without lawful authority in any manner warranting interference by this Court.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.