' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This writ petition has been filed to call in question the order dated 27-6-2005 passed by respondent No,1, Senior Member Board of Revenue.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are to the effect that the State land measuring 98 Kanals was allotted to the petitioner under Grow More Food Scheme in the year 1960 vide order, dated 1-11-1960 and thereafter, the petitioner was put in possession of the said land, which was "Banjar Qadeem" and uncultivable at that time and the petitioner by rendering hard labour day and night and investing his money, made the same as cultivable. The Government of the Punjab after taking into consideration the labour of the allottees decided to grant them proprietary rights vide Notification dated 22-10-1962.
' The petitioner also applied for proprietary rights and his case was decided by the District Collector vide order, dated 16-6-1987, in compliance whereof, the price of land was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, the sale-deed was got prepared and registered in the name of the petitioner.
The dispute started when one Zafar Iqbal son of Muhammad Siddique a retired Patwari filed a suit for specific performance of contract with regard to the property in dispute alleging therein that his son Zafar Iqbal has made an agreement to sell the same with the petitioner, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 12-10-1994 and the appeal filed against the said order also met with the same fate. Thereafter, the said Patwari filed numerous applications before the Revenue Functionaries but in vain. Lastly the grievance of the petitioner starts when the Senior Member, Board of Revenue on the application of the said Patwari referred the matter to Member, Colonies to exercise the jurisdiction under section 12(2), C.P.C., hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proprietary rights have already been issued in favour of the petitioner and the sale-deed issued in his favour and in this way, the petitioner has become absolute and full owner of the land. Further that the right of ownership of the petitioner cannot be rescinded and. Cancelled even under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands Act. Further that under the said Act, the provision of section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not applicable particularly when the remedy of section 30(2) have already been exercised against the petitioner.
Further that the Senior Member Board of Revenue is neither Appellate Authority against the order of the Member Colonies nor has any jurisdiction to re-open the closed and past transaction.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The complaint filed by Muhammad Siddique against the petitioner for cancellation of the land was entrusted to the District Collector on 31-5-2000 by the Member Board of Revenue. On 7-3- 2000, the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang addressed the letter to the Under Secretary (Petitions), Governors' Secretariat, Punjab, Lahore, wherein it is stated that the land allotted to the petitioner at the time of allotment was situated outside the prohibited zone. Thereafter, the limits of the Municipal Committee were extended. It has been laid down in the case of Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari v. Ghulam Muhammad 1994 SCM R 975 that:-- "Tenant was not found entitled to proprietary rights on ground that his allotted land fell within prohibited zone and that such land was excluded from allotment on basis of being a part of "Khusk Bias" river---High Court directing Authorities for conferring of proprietary rights to tenants--- Board of Revenue, on question of prohibited zone, had issued instructions that distance should be measured as required when allotment was made and not as and when proprietary rights were conferred---Allotment of tenants, however, was beyond three miles limits which was applicable to him when he got the allotment but within five miles when he was given proprietary rights."
7. After the allotment of the land and issuance of the proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner, he has spent hard labour and colossal amount to bring the land under plough. On the application of his rival, he cannot be deprived of his properties, which has already come out of the ambit of the revenue functionaries.
8. The Board of Revenue is competent to cancel the land provided the tenant has acquired the land by means of fraud or misrepresentation or was not eligible to have such rights from any reason. The case of the petitioner is not covered within the ambit of provision of section 30(1)(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act.
9. Through the impugned order, the Senior Member Board of Revenue had asked the Member, Board of Revenue for action under section 12(2), C.P.C. I am afraid how the provisions of section 12(2) are attracted to the present case. It has been opined by the District Collector that the property at the time of allotment was lying beyond the prohibitory zone and the Board of Revenue has itself has issued Memo. No,3040-78/1816-LIII, dated 29-6-1978 which indicates that the allottees, whose allotted land was situated outside the prohibited zone at the time of making a provision of proprietary rights, cannot be excluded from the operation of this concession on account of subsequent change in the limits of Municipalities.
10. From perusal and minute scrutiny of the record and reading of the orders, I find no case for interference under section 30(1)(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted as prayed for and the impugned order, dated 27-6-2005 passed by Senior Member, Board of Revenue is declared to have been passed illegally, without lawful authority and of no legal effect, hence quashed.