1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The dispute in this case concerns an area of a little over 13 acres of State land comprised in Square No, 39 situate in Chak No, 96/RB in Tehsil Jaranwala of the Lyallpur District.
2. According to the averments made in the petition, the land was allotted to the petitioner on the 6th of September, 1959. The land was then resumed by the Collector on the 21st of February, 1967, on the ground that he had contravened the conditions of the grant inasmuch as he did not cultivate the land himself, and that he had sown a fodder crop in the land instead of food grains. According to the petitioner, these conclusions were erroneous for the reasons that a confusion had occurred owing to the wrong entry of the relevant Khasra numbers by the village Patwari, the mistake being caused by the fact that the other half of the same square was in the possession of the petitioner's father-in-law.
3. ' The petitioner challenged the Collector's order by way of appeal, but the same was dismissed on the 9th of May. 1967, by the Additional Commissioner, and the petitioner's revision petition was also rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioner then applied for review, but this was also not accepted. He then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but his writ petition was also dismissed on the 2nd of July, 1968, with the result that the resumption of land ordered by the Collector remained intact. On the 26th of April, 1971, the Government is said to have issued fresh instructions to the effect that all allotees under the Grow More Food Scheme would be granted ownership rights, irrespective of the date of allotment and the period of determination of their leases provided they fulfilled the terms and conditions on which the leases were originally granted.
4. These instructions further contemplated that the allotments would be restored, in case the allottees had been ejected. Taking advantage of these new intructions, the petitioner applied to the Collector for the restoration of land, and an order to this effect was made by the Assistant Commissioner on the 23rd of March, 1974, notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime respondent Ali Sher had obtained the land on temporary cultivation for a period of five years on the basis of a tender submitted by him. This Ali Sher filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, but his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the 25th of May, 1974. However, the respondent's revision petition was accepted by a learned Member of the Board of revenue by his order dated the 9th of July, 1974, observing that the instructions issued by the Punjab Government on the 26th of April, 1971, were not applicable to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the land had been resumed from him for breach of the terms and conditions of the Grow More Food Scheme. The learned Member also took note of the fact that in the first round of litigation the resumption of the land had been upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue as well as by the High Court, and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the restoration of the allotment.
5. On this view of the matter he set . Aside the order of the Collector dated the 23rd of March, 1974, as well as that of the Additional Commissioner dated 25th of May, 1974. This order became final between the parties.
6. ' The petitioner then approached the Provincial Minister for Rehabilitation and Colonies, and obtained an order from him on the 16th of November, 1974, for the restoration of the land to him. It appears from the copy of the order passed by the Minister that he examined the facts of the case for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had been wrongly ejected from the land and that the Khasra Girdawaris had not been properly construed. He also expressed the view that the breaches of the terms and conditions committed by the petitioner could be condoned.
7. Accordingly, he condoned the breaches in question and ordered that the possession of the land be restored to the petitioner, and that respondent Ali Sher may be given some alternative land on tender basis on the same terms and conditions for the unexpired period of his lease. This order was implemented by the Collector in pursuance of the directions issued to him by the Colonies Department on the 19th of November, 1974.
8. ' The respondent Ali Sher felt aggrieved by this order of the Minister as implemented by the Collector, and filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was accepted by a learned Judge by an elaborate order made on the 19th of June, 1975. He observed that the Minister of Colonies and Rehabilitation had no jurisdiction to go behined the findings of fact recorded by the competent authority at the highest level of the Board of Revenue, and upheld by the High Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner himself. The learned Judge rejected the argument that the Government had any power to deal with this land after it had once issued the statement of conditions of the Grow More Food Scheme under subsection (3) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1913. Finally, the learned Judge stated that, in any case, the respondent Ali Sher had acquired a valuable right which could not be taken away by the Minister without issuing notice to him.
9. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen in error in thinking that the respondent Ali Sher had acquired any vested right in the property, as All Sher was only a temporary allottee, and the termination of his temporary lease did not require any notice in terms of section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act ; that similarly the High Court is in error in holding that the Provincial Minister, acting on behalf of the Government, had no power to restore the land to the petitioner, as, in fact, it was in the nature of a fresh grant, which the Government was competent to make at any time in respect of available State land ; and, finally that the Government always retains the right to correct the orders of its officers and, therefore, the Minister was competent to go behind the findings recorded by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In support of these submissions the learned counsel has referred us to Lal Din v.
10. Muhammad Yousaf and another (1), Shah Muhammad v. Muhammad Sharif (2), Lt.-Cpl.
11. Muhammad Amin Khan v. Government of West Pakistan and others (3), Chaudhury Muhammad Zafar Yasin v. M. Ghtdam Qadir and others (4), Muhammad Ayub etc. v. Muhammad Yaqoob and other (5) and Sh. Muhammad Sharif v. Inspector-General of Prisons Punjab (6).
12. ' After hearing Mr. Bilal at some length we have formed the view that there is no merit in these submissions. It seems to us that the primary question in this case is not of the entitlement of the respondent Ali Sher to a show-cause notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act ; rather the important question is whether after the entitlement of the petitioner to have the land restored had been finally determined and rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, acting as the specified statutory authority under the relevant law, the Provincial Minister could intervene by converting himself into a quasi-judicial authority and record findings of fact contrary to those found by two successive Members of the Board of Revenue and upheld by the High Court, regarding the breach of conditions of the original grant by the petitioner. The power conferred under section 10 of the Act is in general terms authorising the Provincial Government to issue statement of conditions for the grant of State land, and the actual grant is then made by the Collector. The orders of the Collector are subject to appeal and revision under section 7 of the Act in the same manner as they would be under the Land Revenue Act. We were not shown any statutory provisions authorising the Government to act in revision or review over the judicial orders made by the Board of Revenue between the parties. The general power of supervision vesting in the Government has never been deemed to include a power to interfere with the exercise of judicial functions of the specified statutory authorities, unless the statute itself contains a provision in that behalf. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in the High Court seems to us to be right in saying that the Minister for Rehabilitation and Colonies had no jurisdiction or power to go behind the findings of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue in an order which had become final between the parties. According to that order the petitioner had been guilty of breach of conditions of the grant made in his favour, and the competent authority thought it fit not to condone the breaches.
13. ' The authorities referred to by Mr. Bilal do not seem to be relevant in the present context. In the judgment of the Board of Revenue in La! Din's case it was observed that a notice under section 24 of the Act
(1) PLD 1961 Rev. 25
(3) PLD 1966 Lah. 111
(5) PLD 1975 Lah, 445 (2) PLD 1966 Rev. 192 (4) 1968 SCMR 642 (6) PLD 1978 Lah. 15 ' was not necessary before passing an order of resumption in the case of a temporary lease. We have already observed that this is not the relevant point in this case. In the second judgment from the, Revenue Board, it was observed that a breach of the condition of self-cultivation was capable or rectification, but that again is irrelevant, as in the present case the learned Member, Board of Revenue, had refused to condone the same. At best this judgment could be cited before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, so as to persuade him to condone the breach alleged on the part of the petitioner, but it does not help the petitioner for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the learned Minister, once the matter has been finalised at the level of the Board of Revenue.
14. ' In the case of Lt.-Col. Muhammad Amin Khan and others it was observed that land could be acquired by Government even before the expiry of the tenure of the grant, Mr. Bilal submitted on the same reasoning that the land could be taken away from the respondent All Sher even before the expiry of the period of his temporary lease of five years. This, however, is not the point involved before us, as we are concerned with examining the jurisdiction of the Minister to interfere in a case of this kind after the respective rights of the parties have been finally determined by the statutory authority concerned. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Ch. Muhammad Zafar Yasin the point in issue was altogether different, and it was observed that the State grant could be subjected to any condition thought fit by the State. Similarly the observations of the Lahore High Court in PLD 1975 Lab. 445 in the case of Muhammad Ayub etc. Have no relevance, as it was observed in that case that the Government instruction issued during the pendency of an appeal in the High Court could be acted upon, being a subsequent event or legislation. In the present case we are not dealing with any such situation.
15. ' The last case was cited by the learned counsel in support of his submission that the High Court was in error in thinking that the Minister was not the Government. We have, however, proceeded on the assumption that the Minister was acting on behalf of the Government, but as we have found that the Government had no authority or jurisdiction to supersede a revisional order made by the Board of Revenue it is not necessary to examine the contention that under the rules of business orders made by a Provincial Minister have to be construed as orders made by the Government.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in declaring the Minister's order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, The petition, therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.