NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---Respondent No.1, Abbas Ali, Lunibardar of Thatha Esa, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib, applied to the District Officer Revenue for grant of land under Notification dated 17- 1-2006 as per his entitlement. On 27-3-2009 he was allotted 100 kanals land in Chak No. 17/GB, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib as there was no State land available in village Thatha Esa. That allotment was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same land was leased out to him and he had invested a huge amount on its development. The allotment was cancelled on 28- 10-2009 as the land was neither situated in village Thatha Esa nor in the adjoining village. This order was upheld by the Member Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The respondent assailed both the orders before the Lahore High Court in constitution petition and the same was allowed upon interpreting clause 8(a) of the notification dated 17-1-2006 as amended by notification dated 22-10-2007, which reads:-- "In case State land is not available in village of Lamberdar he may be provided state land in physically joining village/ adjoining villages."
' The High Court held that the addition of the words 'adjoining villages to 'joining village' extended the scope of the provision so as to include villages other those contiguous to the village of the Labrador. The Court went on to add that clause 8(a) would include State land in any village in the Tehsil where the Labrador is appointed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the Chambers Dictionary, the word joining means "to connect, to unite, to associate, to add or annex" and the word "adjoining" means to join on, to lie next to, to be in contact". For the present purpose, no distinction can be drawn between 'joining and adjoining and perhaps the word 'joining village' is superfluous. 'Joining' or 'adjoining' village or villages are those which are physically contiguous to and share a common border with the village of the Lamberdar. It would not include village or villages which are not physically connected with the village of Lumberyard Admittedly, Chak No. 17/GB where the land allotted to the respondent is located is not contiguous to Thatha Esa where the respondent has been appointed as Lamberdar. The land, thus, does pot fall within the scope of clause 8(a) of the notification dated 22-10-2007. The High Court had fallen into error in allowing the respondent's petition and declaring the grant void.
3. Both these petitions are, therefore, converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Member Board of Revenue dated 1-12-2009 is restored.