P L D 1957 W (PLP)

No miscarriage of justice or material irregu larity in procedure‑No interference in revision. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Advocate for Petitioner. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondent. This is a petition for revision against an order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, dated 29th June 1956 by which he upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan, on 7th August 1954, direct ing that the petitioners should be ejected from the land in suit under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. I have heard Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for the petitioners and Kh. Abdur Rahim for the respondents. The facts of this case have been given in detail in the learned Commissioner's order and may be recapitulated briefly. Khan Muhammad respondent purchased 401 acres of Crown land situated in Chak No. I, Abbasia Tahsil Liaqat Pur, District Rahim Yar Khan in the auction held on 16th November 1949. On 13th December 1949, he obtained possession of this land. It is alleged by the petitioners that the respondent agreed to trans fer the land to the petitioners on 13th August 1951, and in pursuance of this agreement made over possession to the petitioners. On 2nd November 1952 the respondent applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they had taken illegal possession of the above mentioned Lands. After elaborate enquiries the ejectment of the petitioners was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. An appeal was preferred before the Financial Commissioner of the old Bahawalpur State which was ultimately transferred for disposal to the Commissioner Bahawalpur Division who finally rejected the appeal on 29th June 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued before me that the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 had not been enforced in Bahawalpur State. Actually a notifica tion was issued in Bahawalpur State on 13th May 1926, by which the Colonisation of Government Lands Act of 1912 was made applicable to the entire Bahawalpur State subject to necessary adaptations. The plea raised before me, there fore, has no force. It was also stated that since the land had been sold in auction to the respondent the ownership of the land no longer remained under the State and Colonisation of Government Lands Act could have no application. As the Commissioner has observed, even after the auction the respondents continued to have the status of a tenant by virtue of section 15 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act. It was only on 31st July 1956, that the proprietary rights were finally acquired in this land by the respondents. The provisions of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act, therefore, were rightly applied in this case. According to section 19 of the same Act the respondent could not have transferred the ownership of this land to the petitioner without the consent of competent authority which was never A obtained. The petitioners, therefore, could not possibly claim that they had become the owners of this land as tenants under the respondents and as the Commissioner has discussed in his order they could only be recorded as trespassers. It has again been argued before me that the Deputy Commissioner having once decided on 20th October 1953 not to take any action for the ejectment of the petitioners he could not have reversed that order subsequently and ordered their ejectment. The record shows that the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not final. In fact the respondent had been directed to show relevant law in support of his case and when this had been done final orders of eject ment were ordered. Neither the plea mentioned last nor another argument urged before me that the petitioners were not given full opportunity to be heard before orders were passed against them, can be substantiated from the record of this case. In any case in view of the concurrent findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner with which I agree, I do not find that there has been any such miscarriage of justice or material irregularity of procedure which would warrant interference in revision. The petition is dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.