1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This leave petition, which is meant to impugn the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 24-2-1970, arise in the following circumstances :- The state land measuring 12 acres 3 kanals and 11 marlas, situated in Chak No. 31/G. B., District Faisalabad, was granted to respondent No. 2 under the Livestock Breeding Scheme (1960) for the purpose of breeding pedigree livestock on the following conditions :-
(a) The land was to remain with him on tenancy for ten years w, e. f the Rabi crop of 1965 to Kharif 1974. The tenancy was renewable. For another five years provided he was found to have complied with the terms of the tenancy and further to have made an application in that behalf before the, expiry of the term of the original grant;
(b) The land was to be used by him for no purpose other than that of breeding livestock. The Government had the right of re-entry if he was found to have failed to perform or committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy.
2. The case of the petitioner throughout has been that no sooner the said piece of land was taken over by respondent No. 2, he gave the same to the petitioner for cultivation in lieu of half batai. And ever since then the petitioner has been in cultivating possession thereof. On the expiry of the said period of ten years, however, respondent No. 2 not only made an application for the renewal of the grant, but by a notification, dated 24-6-1974 published under the authority of the Government of the Punjab, it was decided that all cases of the grant of the said nature shall not be renewed.
3. Respondent No. 2, in order to challenge the validity of the said notification, filed Writ Petition No. 1129 of 1975 in the High Court. Before considering the said writ petition, however. The High Court sent for the comments of the Government in which the stand taken, amongst other things, was that the Government did not propose to dispossess the petitioner of the land of whicc. He was the guarantee. Upon receipt of the said report, the writ petitio--of respondent No. 2 was held to be premature, and dismissed as such to limlne.
4. After the dismissal of the said writ petition of respondent No. 2, the petitioner made an application to the Collector, Faisalabad, for the lease of the land in dispute under the Scheme of State Land to Landless cultivators).And the same was leased out to him on 16-7-1976 for a period of one year (1975-76), and thereafter renewed for another year .In consideration of the rent of Rs.1,000 per annum. Against the said order of the Collector, respondent No. 2 went in appeal before Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad, but the same was dismissed by him vide order dated 22-12-1976. Finally he went in revision before the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide his order dated 16-6- 1977, allowed the same with this observa--tion that the petitioner, being in the cultivating possession of the land shall not be ejected there from otherwise than in due course of law. Being aggrieved of the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1651 of 1977 in the Lahore High Court, but a learned Single Judge dismissed the same vide his judgment dated 24-2-1979 with costs. It is in this background that the petitioner has come up to this Court seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
5. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the judgment of the High Court on the following grounds:
(1) That the learned Single Judge endorsed the patently wrong and untenable order of the Member, Board of Revenue not realizing that after the Kharif 1974 respondent No. 2 was left with no right in the land in dispute, as also that he had violated the terms of the grant by letting cut the land in dispute to the petitioner on rent of which the petitioner had remained in possession through out the period of the said grant ;
(2) that in regard to the allegations made in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2, the Government had taken a wrong stand in the comments submitted by it to the High Court that there was no proposal of resuming the land from respondent No. 2, as the expression "resumption" presupposes a subsisting right of which a tenant in possession of land is liable to be deprived under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. In the case in hand, however, after the efflux of the period of ten years, for which the land in dispute was granted to respondent No. 2, the latter was evidently left with no right therein and consequently by the said wrong report submitted to the High Court, the petitioner was prejudiced;
(3) that in the said writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 the petitioner was not imploded as a party and therefore, the petitioner is not bound by the terms of the said report submitted to the High Court by the Governmentand
(4) that when the said report was submitted to the High Court memo. No. 3237-74, dated 24-6- 1974, by which it was declared that all grants made under the Pedigree Livestock Scheme were not to be renewed, held the field and consequently the High Court was in error to have endorsed the untenable view taken by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in contravention of the terms of the said memo.
6. We have heard the learned counsel at great length. The main thrust of his argument has been that after the expiry of the original period of ten years for which the land was granted to respondent, No. 2 he was left with no right in the land. But we pointed out to him that this would not help. Him, unless he would be able to establish the independent right of the petitioner in that behalf. The admitted position is that the petitioner entered into the cultivating possession of the land as a tenant of respondent No. 2, who according to the learned counsel was related to him as collateral.
7. In this view of the matter, and considering that the learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioner had any independent right of his own in respect of the land in dispute, all the contentions urged by him would seem to be irrelevant. It is not disputed that the Government, in spite of the fact that the original grant for which the land was given to respondent No. 2~ has expired, has expressed its intention not to dispossess him from the disputed land. And if this be so then how can the petitioner, who had entered into possession of the land as his tenant can set up an adverse title to him or deny that he was his landlord.
8. The further difficulty, and which seems to us to be the fundamental hurdle in the way of the petitioner, is that the land in dispute was granted to respondent No. 2 by the Government under para. 3 of the Livestock BreedingScheme (1960), which is to the following effect :- "Purpose. The tenancy shall be used for the sole purpose of breeding pedigree livestock and shall not be used for the purpose of building, except such buildings as are in the opinion of the Regional o Divisional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department or the Zone, required for breeding purpose."
9. Now the case of the learned counsel throughout has been that respondent No. 2 lad openly violated the requirement of the s aid section, inasmuch as instead ,of using the land for the purpose of breeding pedigree livestock he rented the same to the petitioner for raising crops in lieu of half batai. Now there is no doubt that this has been the position. But unfortunately, for the petitioner he also seems to have brought himself within the mischief of the said para. By having accepted the land on the basis of tenancy and used the same in contravention of the purpose for which it had been granted to respondent No. 2. In other words he is in par! Delicto with the said respondent, and consequently would be disentitled to the exercise of an discretionary jurisdiction in his favour which in view of the settled position cannot be extended in aid of inequity.
10. Furthermore, as would be seen from para. 2 of the Livestock Breeding Scheme, to grant or not to grant the Government land to any one rests is the discretion of the Government. The fact, however, is that in the exercise of the said discretion the petitioner has not been favoured with the lease he land in dispute, and consequently this Court cannot sit over the judgment of the Government to that behalf.
11. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.