' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 8-2-2005 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby a revision filed by him against order dated 17-9- 2004 of the E.D.O.(R), Sahiwal was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of the record are that the petitioner is an allottee of the disputed land under Horse Breeding Scheme. The District Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 30-7- 2003 extended the lease w,e,f, 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2006 on the previous terms and conditions but subject to payment of Rs,2000 as fine. The District Remount Officer, Sahwial challenged the order before the E.D.O.(R), who vide impugned order directed that the rectifications as prescribed in para 33 of Notification No,4292-83-2537- CL-1 dated 9-8-1983 be got effected and in case of failure on part of the tenant the land be resumed in favour of the State. The petitioner assailed the said order through revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, which was dismissed through impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order by itself shows that the petitioner had supplied the foal and that the previous abortion had taken. Place without any fault of the petitioner; that the District Officer (Revenue) and E.D.O.(R) were not bound by the recommendation of the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal as he is only technical advisor; that Notification No,4292-83/2537-CL-1 dated 9-8-1983 is not applicable on the Horse Breeding Scheme, which is governed under Notification No,2838-C dated 1-7-1942; that under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act in case of any breach of the terms of tenancy, the Collector may impose a penalty not exceeding rupees ten thousands or pass an order for the resumption of the tenancy but the resumption cannot be ordered if the breach can be rectified; that the Board of Revenue vide orders dated 15-11-2005 and 29-9-2010 passed in ROR No,2218/04 and ROR 1684/06 respectively has categorically held that notification dated 9-8-1983 relates to Animal Breeding Scheme and not to the Horse Breeding Scheme and that Raja Sultan Javed Khan and Iqbal Ahmad against whom the E.D.O.(R) had passed similar orders vide impugned order dated 17-9-2004 had filed the abovementioned revision petitions, which were accepted with the above observations that notification dated 9-8-1983 was applicable on Horse Breeding Scheme so the petitioner has been illegally penalized although the alleged breach in his case stood rectified.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the Board of Revenue is the highest forum in the revenue hierarchy and was competent. To decide the revision petition under section 164 the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912; that E.D.O.(R) was fully competent to pass the order under section 24 for rectification as per para 33 of the Notification dated 9-8-1983 within three months or resumption of the land by cancelling the tenancy and that the petitioner has been responsible for contumacious breach of the conditions.
5. The order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, vividly reveals that the mare of the petitioner had subsequently delivered a foal, which was supplied to the concerned authorities. The observation that his previous conduct did not inspire confidence was not sufficient to pass the impugned order because he could have not been condemned for the abortion or mis-carriage because it is not established that he was negligent in looking after the mare. He cannot be penalized for ill fated acts of nature. Moreover the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in orders dated 15-11-2005 and 29-9-2010 passed in ROR 2218 of 2004 and 1684 of 2006 has clearly held that Para No,33 of Notification dated 9-8-1983 is not applicable on the tenancy under Horse Breeding Scheme so the impugned orders of E.D.O.(R) and the learned Member, Board of Revenue are illegal on this account alone. Moreover under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act the penal action in form of imposition of fine up to Rs,10,000 in case of breach is clearly provided. No doubt, the resumption can also be ordered if the breach is not rectifiable but in this case the breach was rectifiable and in fact stood rectified on delivery of the foal. It is the basic principle of administration of justice that, where any enactment provides two penalties then the more harsh should not be imposed. Moreover, the petitioner was also entitled to the relief which was given to the other allottees placed in similar conditions in the abovementioned orders and could have not been treated discriminately.
6. For the reasons supra the petition is accepted and both the impugned orders are hereby set aside. Resultantly the petitioner would be entitled to the extension in terms of order dated 30-7- 2003 passed by the learned District Officer (Revenue).