This judgment will dispose of two Writ Petitions (Nos. 1570 of 1966 and 1571 of 1966) along with C. M. 3 of 1974.
2. Board of Revenue issued a Memorandum No..908/62/1331-S (G), dated 17-5-1962, providing that all State land irrespective of the limits from Mandi Town be auctioned. The various plots of land in question in these two writ petitions were put to auction on 2-1-1963. The auction was confirmed by the Board of Revenue on 1-7-1965. On 6-8-1966, on reports of the subordinate authorities, Board of Revenue deconfirmed the auction. The petitioners have filed writ petitions under Article 98 of the late Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1962, challenging the order of the Board of Revenue deconfirming the auction earlier confirmed in their favour.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the confirmation having taken place the Board of Revenue bad become functus officio in the matter and could not take any action in this behalf. Learned counsel has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner submitted a note to the effect that the area was reserved for extension of Mandi Town Vehari since long, and that the area should not have been auctioned, it was wrongly included in the schedule of auction on the basis of para. 2(3) of Government Memo. No. 908/62/-1331-S (G) dated 17-5-1962 under which State land irrespective of the limits from Mandi Town was to be auctioned. It is submitted that, in the first instance, the area in question was not reserved for extension of Mandi Town Vehari, and; even if that be so, the same stood annulled by the decision of the Board of Revenue when it decided on 17- 5-1962 to auction all State land. It is, further submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the area was put to auction and was subsequently confirmed. The petitioners had spent lot of money and labour in having the same under cultivation. It was all dumes before. It was neither legal, nor proper for the Deputy Commissioner to have submitted a report for deconfirmation of the area in question to the Board of Revenue on the ground that it should not have been auctioned. In accordance with the decision of the Board of Revenue, it was quite clear that all State land was to be put to auction, irrespective of the limits from Mandi Town.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire proceedings are void for having been taken without notice to the petitioners. He also relies on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1428 of 1966 decided on 13-10-1972, whereby the order of the Board of Revenue, in almost identical circumstances, was quashed on the ground of lack of notice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the area in question had been wrongly put to auction, and therefore, it was open to the Board of Revenue to correct the mistake. He has placed reliance on Sardar Habibullah and others v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1967 Lah. 52).
As regards notice, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was an administrative matter, therefore, it was not necessary.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it appears that after the confirmation of the land in favour of the petitioners, the same could not be taken back without proper notice or hearing them.
As regards the case of Sardar Habibullah above referred to, it is to be noticed that the order of cancellation had been sustained on the ground that the transferee was not eligible for the sale of the land. That is not the position in these cases. In the present cases, no blame lies on the petitioners. The only thing urged against them is that the area should not have been put to auction in the first instance. Further; on the record as at present exists, there is no evidence to show that the area had, in fact, been reserved for extension of abadi. Secondly, even if that be so, before the auction confirmed in favour of the' petitioners could be deconfirmed, they had to be given notice and afforded an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner had filled additional documents in support of his contention that the areas similarly auctioned, confirmed and deconfirmed had been given back by the Board of Revenue to other persons similarly placed. As decided by this Court in an earlier Petition No. 1428/66 (Nazir Ahmad v. Member, Board of Revenue on 13-10-1972 these two petitions are also accepted. The order of deconfirmation is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The C. M. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1974, have no more any relevance in these proceedings. The same are accordingly disposed of. If some action is required to be taken by the respondents authority that should be done after due notice to the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.