2003 PLP 915 (MLD)

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that 27 acres of agricultural land belonging to Evacuee Trust Board was on lease with the petitioner. The said lease was cancelled by respondent No.3, vide order dated 15-12-1996 (Annex. A). Appeal against that order filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 11-9-2000 (Annex. B). Revision against that order was dismissed due to non -prosecution by respondent No.1, vide order dated 31-3-2002 (Annex. C).

3. Petitioner application for restoration of the said revision petition was also dismissed by respondent No.1, vide order dated 20-7-2002 (Annex.-D).

4. The said order (Annex. D) is called in question in this Constitutional petition as without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the prayer that it be declared as such with a further declaration that the petitioner is entitled to, the grant of lease in respect of the said land.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without going into the merits of the case and without hearing the petitioner hence for the said reasons it is illegal and was, therefore, passed without lawful authority.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the revision petition was fixed four times but on every date it was adjourned on the request of the petitioner for providing correct Khasra Gardawari in his name but he failed to do the needful, whereupon a notice was issued intimating him that the date of hearing in the revision was fixed as 31-3-2001. In spite of personal service the petitioner did not bother to appear on that date nor cared to send any application for adjournment on account of which the revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. The impugned order further reveals that the petitioner was also absent before the Court on the date which was fixed for hearing of his application far restoration.

8. Reasons mentioned in the impugned order for dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution as well as for dismissing the application for restoration of the revision petition are plausible. Member, Board of Revenue, obviously had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, hence it cannot be deemed to have been passed by him without lawful authority on account of the fact that merits of the revision petition were not discussed therein. Merits of the case i.e. revision petition were not required to be gone into and discussed in the application for restoration. The only point which required consideration in that petition was if there were good grounds for the restoration of the revision petition.

9. The petitioner did not appear on the date which was fixed for hearing of the restoration petition. Had he been present he would have been definitely heard. It is not alleged that the petitioner was not aware about that date. His son was admittedly present on the said date on his behalf and the respondents were represented by their counsel.

10. The impugned order was passed after hearing the arguments and perusing the record.

11. It is not a case of illegal assumption of jurisdiction, the impugned order is entirely reasonable; M.B.R. had the jurisdiction to pass the said order hence it cannot be deemed to have been passed without lawful authority. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is without any merit, it is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./K-197/L Petition dismissed.