1984 PLP 1185 (CLC)

‑‑ Art. 199 read with Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 24‑Resumption of land‑‑Petitioner, auction purchasers of colony land, failing to deposit price of land by due date and as a consequence Collector resuming their land‑Petitioners on failing in appeal and revision before Departmental Authorities, invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court challenging such resumption on ground that they were not ever afforded opportunity by Collector for rectifying breach‑Petitioners found afforded all reasonable opportunity in proceedings that followed and allowed time to rectify breach but failed‑Order of resumption of land, held, need no interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioners have succeeded the auction‑purchaser in respect of the colony land which was sold for Rs. 64,000 in December, 1982, the price to be paid in four instalments, one at the time of auction and the rest into three annual instalments. The petitioners who succeeded the auction‑purchaser with the permission of the Collector failed to clear the instalments on which the Collector resumed tenancy on 13‑1‑1965. The petitioners approached in appeal the Additional Commissioner, who passed an order on 29‑3‑1965, taking a lenient view of the matter allowing the petitioners to pay all the dues of the first instalment as well as the second instalment due on 28‑2‑196.5 with penal interest at 9 % within a fortnight failing which the cancellation order was to stand. A revision petition was preferred against this order to the Board of Revenue and the Member, Board of Revenue on 18‑5‑1965 again passed an order to the same effect that "the revision would be taken on merits when all payments due had been made on the date fixed. Thereafter the petitioners did not appear nor the counsel representing them gave any satisfactory reasons for not making the deposit." On 6‑8‑1965 the petitioners approached the Collector for complying with the order of the Additional Commissioner referred to above with was refused on the ground that no additional time could be granted in view of the order of the Board of Revenue. They failed in appeal against that order and in the second round of revision to the Board of Revenue as well.

2. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment in their favour for default the petitioners have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the order of resumption as maintained in appeal and revision on the ground that no opportunity was ever afforded b~ the Collector in penalizing the petitioners for a rectifiable breach. As regards the non‑compliance with the orders passed by the Additional Com missioner and the Board of Revenue it is stated that those orders covered even those instalments which had not yet become due. By way of an example it is stated that the petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest was put in possession of the property in June, 1963 and the instalments could not be due before June, 1964 and June, 1965 while the Additional Commissioner had directed the deposit in March, 1965 the instalment said to be due in February, 1965 while in fact it was due in June, 1965.

3. So far as the ground of want of show‑cause notice or an oppor tunity to rectify the breach is concerned, it is amply made up by the pro ceedings that followed in which the petitioners were fully associated and extension of time was allowed to rectify the breach as well.

4. As regards the second objection to the order of the Additional Commissioner and that of the Board of Revenue, it appears from the memo. of revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the Additional Commissioner to which an objection has now been taken that therein it was admitted that the second instalment had become due in February, 1964. With this admission the timing of the instalments as appearing in the order of the Board of Revenue would also be correct and such a factual question in view of the admission made cannot be taken at a belated stage not in any case in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. "The possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed mean while subject to their depositing the amount due within a period of two months." The departmental representative informs that the challan was prepared and handed over to the petitioners indicating the dues which were shown against them but they did not make any deposit of the same.

6. In the circumstances, it is quite clear that the petitioners have been afforded all reasonable opportunity for making up the default but they failed to make 'it up and the order of resumption, therefore, cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court. The petition is dismissed with costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.