1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAH1M, J.-The dispute in these two leave petitions relates to the Meta Base evictees and the petitioners, who claim to be in cultivating possession of the land earlier granted to the Meta Base evictees.
2. In the first round of litigation between the parties, the petitioners succeeded both before the Administration vide order dated 4-8-1973, made by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, and in the Courts, vide judgment of the High Court of Lahore in W.P. No. 1694 of 1973 and in Civil Revisions Nos. 321, 322 and 323 of 1974. The success achieved by the petitioners was, that they were inducted as temporary cultivator directly establishing a link with the State as its tenants.
3. Following the above, in the year 1975, came the Punjab Government Cabinet decision dated 5-5- 1975, which was as follows :-- "All persons who are genuine evictees and are sitting tenants may be given land at market price subject to a ceiling of 12 --acres.
4. The total cost to be recovered in ten equal instalments."
5. The above decision was challenged by the petitioners vide Writ Petition No. 1267 of 1975, which was dismissed in limine by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 11-6-1975, which is the subject-wetter of C. P. No. 930 of 1975.
6. In support of this petition, Mr. Yaqub Awan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterated his contention before the High Court that the dispute in question having been finally resolved in the first round of litigation between the parties both on the administrative side as well as judicial, could not be reversed by the Cabinet. The contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in these words :- "So far as the first ground is concerned viz. Having not succeeded in Court or before the administrative authorities is not and cannot be a ground to estop a competent authority from conferring at a future date such rights as in law is conferable on those persons. It is true that earlier they were not found entitled to any such benefit and according to the decision of the Cabinet impugned by this petition they have been held entitled on satisfaction of certain conditions unless it is shown that the decision has not proceeded from a competent authority."
7. The mere reversal of it is no ground for grievance especially in view of the nature of interest held by the petitioners in the property. The Provincial Cabinet is not shown to be lacking in competence in the matter of dealing with State land and interest therein ------ We entire agree with the learned Single Judge that it was within the competency of the Government to examine the question and ascertain for it self the persons who were found entitled to obtain the benefit of the proprietary rights in the land in question, notwithstanding the previous decision to the contrary.
8. Following the above a memorandum dated 16-5-1976 was issued by a Deputy Secretary to give effect to the aforesaid Cabinet decision dated 5-5-1975, the validity of which was challenged by some of the petitioners herein in two Writ Petitions Nos. 336 of 1975 and 1410 of 1975, in which the observation made was that there was force in the petitioners' contention that para. 2 of memorandum dated 16-5-1975 ran counter to the Cabinet decision. The Court concluded that the impugned memorandum dated 16-5-1975 cannot be implemented according to its tenor and the matter, was, therefore, remitted to the Government to decide the question and resolve the confu-- sion and--- "elucidate its decision and explain its intention as to whether the term `sitting tenants' in its decision taken on 5-5-1975 is intended to refer Mela Base evictees who were allotted land, or whether it refers to the Meta Base evictees who were allotted the land and who were also actually cultivating it themselves. It should further clarify whether the intention of the decision of 5-5-1975 is to obtain the ejectment of the existing tenants or merely to confer proprietary rights on the gonuine Mela Base evictees leaving it to them to eject the persons tilling their lands in case they do not abide by the terms and conditions of tenancy."
9. The Government, thereafter, issued a fresh memorandum on 17th July, 1976, which granted proprietary rights to genuine Mela Base evictees without distinction of being self-cultivators or through sitting tenants over the land in dispute. This memorandum was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2015 of 1976, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 14-3-1977, which decision was affirmed in Intra-Court Appeal No. 27 of 1977. f. This controversy is subjectmatter of C. P. No. 94-R of 1977.
10. The petitioners contended before the High Court, firstly that the Secretary (Colonies), who is signatory to the memorandum dated 17-7-1976, had no power to vary the Cabinet decision dated 5-5-1975, but when they were confronted with the fact that the impugned memorandum had been issued with the approval of the Provincial Government through its Minister (Colonies), the argument advanced was that the earlier Cabinet decision dated 5-5-1975 could not be reversed by a Minister.
11. Before us, the learned counsel reiterated big contention and relied on clause (1) of Article 129 of the Constitution which provides that "129.-(1) Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the province shall be exercised in the name of the Governor by the Pro--vincial Government, consisting of the Chief Minister and Provincial Ministers, which shall act through the Chief Minister."
12. The argument not only ignores clause (2) of Article 129 of the Constitu--tion, which provides that- "In the performance of his functions under the Constitution, the Chief Minister may act either directly or through the Provincial Ministers." but also the Rules of Business, and in particular clause (a) of rule 6, which provides that the Minister shall be responsible for policy matters and B for the conduct of the business of his Department.
13. These petitions are, therefore, without any merit and are dismissed.