' By this judgment I intend to dispose of R. S. As. Nos. 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213 and 317, all of 1969, since the questions of fact and law involved in all these appeals are similar and they impugn the same judgment and decree dated 12-2-1969 passed by the learned Additional District Judge I, Sahiwal.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellants were allottees of agricultural land in the District of Sahiwal under the Grow More Food Scheme. The lands allotted to them were resumed by the Collector on the ground that those were situated within five miles radius of the outer limits of the municipality.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of resumption passed by the Collector the appellants instituted separate suits assailing the legality and Validity of the order of resumption passed by the Collector, Sahiwal. It was asserted by the appellants in their plaints that they had fulfilled the terms and conditions laid down under the Scheme and as per prescribed conditions they had become eligible to acquire proprietary rights in respect of the lands allotted to them through sale by private treaty and that since the last memorandum No, 4826-62/4419-S(G)-III, dated 22-10-1962 issued by the Board of Revenue did not contain any condition that proprietary rights could not be acquired regarding the leased parcels of land, which lay within five miles radius of the outer limits of a municipality the Collector had no jurisdiction to resume the lands on the basis of the above ground which existed in the earlier memorandums issued by the Board of Revenue. It was also pleaded that the Collector could not resume the lands without having determined and having paid compensation for the improvements which had been effected on the lands by the appellants.
4. These suits were resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order of resumption was passed with jurisdiction and was in accordance with the instructions of the Provincial Government. On this premises it was asserted that the suits were barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and that they were also hit by limitation.
5. The suits out of which R. S. As. Nos. 208, 209, 211, 212 and 213, all of 1969, have arisen were decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 20-3-1968. The suit out of which R. S. A. No, 210 of 1969 has arisen was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 2-7-1968, while the one out of which R.
S. A. No, 317 of 1969 has arisen was decreed vide judgment dated 3-6-1968.
6. The respondent-Government feeling dissatisfied preferred appeals against the aforementioned judgments and decrees of the trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge I, Sahiwal who disposed of all the appeals by his judgment dated 12-2-1969. The learned Additional District Judge accepted all the appeals and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial Court dismissed the suits of the appellants with costs throughout. Hence these second appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that all earlier instructions issued by the Board of Revenue specifically laid down the condition that proprietary rights in respect of lands situate within five miles radius of the outer limits of the municipality were not to be given to the allottees by private treaty. He argued that since memorandum No, 4826-62/ 4419-S(G)-111 dated 22-10-1962 did not prescribe this condition it should be presumed that the condition had been withdrawn and that irrespective of the location of the land a Grow More Food Scheme allottee could be sold the same if he fulfilled other conditions.
' He further contended that since the above memorandum also provided the formula for determining the price of the land which was relatable to the location, it was implied that the location had become immaterial inasmuch as if it was nearer the municipality the price would have been higher.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General argued that the omission to mention specifically the condition in question could not be treated as an implied removal thereof. He urged that if the Government intended to withdraw this condition there was no impediment in having given a specific direction in that regard. He referred to memorandums Exh. P. 3 and Exh. P. 4 and submitted that since memorandum Exh. P. 4 relied on by the appellants was issued with reference to the earlier memorandum Exh. P. 3 which specifically contained the condition in question it had to be taken that the former communication was to be read in continuation and conjunctively with the latter and not in supersession thereof.
' He, however, very candidly placed on record memorandum No, 3024-72/ 3946-CL-III dated 12-12- 1972 which was issued with reference to an earlier memorandum dated 31-8-1972 laying down uniform limits for the prohibited zones under various schemes which, inter alia, included the scheme in question in these appeals. He, in the context of this memorandum, pointed out that since the prohibited radius within which the lands could not be allowed to be sold under a private treaty to allottees of Grow More Food Scheme had been altered, and in many cases, considerably reduced, it may well be that appellants had become eligible for retaining their allotments and obtaining proprietary rights therein. He therefore suggested that in the interest of justice the cases may be remanded for adjudication afresh keeping in view the latest instructions on the subject.
9. I asked both the learned counsel as to whether there was anything on record to show the location of the lands in dispute qua the municipalities, railway stations, etc so that the effect of memorandum referred to above could be gone into in these appeals by allowing the placing on record of this memorandum as additional evidence, and, thus, deciding the matter finally here.
Both the learned counsel stated that there was nothing on record to show the location of the lands.
10.
Since the memoranda dated 31-8-1972 and 12-12-1972 which amount to modification of the statement of conditions under which the tenancies were held had come into existence during the pendency of these appeals, these have to be taken into consideration as supervening factors in order to effectually decide the controversy involved. Refer Muhammad Ayub etc. v. Muhammad Yaqub and another (1). The effect of these memoranda (1) PLD 1975 Lah. 445 on cases under discussion may have been gone into by me and the case decided here finally had there been sufficient material on record regarding the location of the lands in dispute. This point being essentially relatable to facts requires leading of evidence. In this view of the matter I have no option but to remand the cases to the trial Court.
11. Before parting with the case it may be observed that since I have decided to remand these cases to the trial Court for adjudication afresh I do not feel inclined to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the parties before me as any observations that I may make may prejudice the case of any of them. The parties shall be at liberty to raise these contentions before the trial Court and have them decided there.
12. I therefore accept these appeals and setting aside judgments and decrees dated 20-3-1968 and 12-2-1969 respectively passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sahiwal and the learned Additional District Judge I, Sahiwal, remit the cases back to the Administrative Civil Judge, Sahiwal for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned Administrative Civil Judge shall deal with the cases as expeditiously as possible and shall make effort to decide all of them within six months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties shall be afforded opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases and the matter shall be decided by the trial Court keeping in view all the memorandums issued by the Board of Revenue from time to time governing the subject of Grow More Food Scheme. In the peculiar circumstances of the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.