This order disposes of the following petitions:--
(1) W. P. No. 717 of 1974 - Mr. Muhammad Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue, etc.
(2) W. P. No. 780; of 1974 - Sheru, etc. v. Member, Board of Revenue, etc.
(3) W. P. No. 781 of 1974-Sheru, etc. v. Member; Board of Revenue, etc.
(4) W. P. No. 782 of 1974-Sheru, etc. v. Member, Board of Revenue, etc. The petitioners were all allottees of State land under 15 years Scheme in Chak 81/R. B., Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land before its allotment to them had been allotted to the respondents under the Grow-More-Food Scheme. It was resumed on the ground that the grow more food allottees had committed a default in the payment of rent and the land was situate within the prohibited Zone of 5 miles. Against such resumption they had appealed to the Additional Commissioner who had accepted it with the condition that they should clear the rent due by the 10th of January, 1969 failing which their appeals against resumption were to stand dismissed. They did not deposit the rent and forfeiture followed. On resumption the land covered by the grow more food grant was available for allotment under 15 years lease scheme and was allotted by the Collector to the petitioners on 25th May, 1971. It was subsequent to such allotment that the erstwhile grow more food allottees sought and obtained from the, Collector an order permitting them to deposit the rent due in respect of their grow more food allotment. With the permission of the Collector, the rent due was paid on 5th August, 1971. Then the grow more food allottees challenged the allotment of the same land to the petitioners in appeal to the Additional Commissioner. By an order dated the 20th March, 1972, the Additional Commissioner restored the allotment to the grow more food allottees and protected the interest of the petitioners by directing that the possession of the petitioners should not be disturbed till 31st October, 1972, by which date the Collector should make provision of alternate land to them as they were not found to be at fault. There was an application by the grow more food allottees for review of this order inasmuch as instead of directing restoration of possession to them it protected the possession of the petitioners till 31st October, 1972 and beyond if the allotment of alternate land was not made. The review petition was allowed. A revision was taken by the petitioners to the Board of Revenue in which the petitioners have succeeded only to the extent of having their claim to alternate land reaffirmed. As regards the continuance of their possession on this land it was held that the grow more food allottees who had succeeded in appeal before the Additional Commissioner had a better claim and consequently that part of the order passed in review was upheld.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions is that in the first place the order of the Collector permitting the respondents to clear the arrears of rent long after the period prescribed by the Additional Commissioner was itself without lawful authority and that order had been passed when the petitioners had come to have vested right in the property in the form of allotment under the 15 years scheme. Further it is stated that even the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 20th March, 1.972, satisfied them in so far as it permitted uninterrupted possession on State land, whether it was the one in dispute or some other by way of an alternate land. The review of that without notice to the petitioners and the order in revision depriving them of such a protection in the matter of possession was without lawful authority.
3. The petitioners have disentitled themselves to the relief that they are seeking in respect of the validity and correctness of the orders of the Collector permitting the respondents to clear the arrears passed in variation of the order of the Additional Commissioner and so far as the respondents have been found eligible to be restored to their allotment. The reason is that even if the order passed by the Collector in 1971 directing that arrears be paid thereby varying the order of the Additional Commissioner which allowed payment upto 10th January, 1969 and not thereafter, was passed without notice to peti--tioners. They had come to know of its existence soon thereafter for on the basis of that order the respondents had approached the Commissioner in appeal against the allotment made to the petitioners. That order was not ever challenged by the petitioners in any proceedings whatsoever. Their mentioning it before the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue in proceedings which concerned the question of validity of certain other orders would not have met the requirements of the situation.
4. Similarly the order of the Additional Commissioner which upheld the entitlement of the grow more food allottees to be restored to their allotment was not the subject-matter of challenge by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue. Therefore the question of late deposit of the rent and the entitlement of the respondents to be restored to their earlier grant under the grow more food scheme is beyond question in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. As regards the relief which had been granted to the petitioners by the order of the Additional Commissioner which has been partly upheld, it concerned the protection of possession till alternate land was allotted. A date was also given. There was no law requiring the departmental officers to make such an alternate arrangement for the benefit of the petitioners. If they did so it was within the sphere of discretion and to meet the equitable demand of the situation. The right of the petitioners to obtain alternate land has been clearly recognized. In view of the recognization of the rights of an earlier allottee of rights to be restored to allotment, it is only a question of propriety that has been brought for examination in this constitutional jurisdiction, is a whether pending the allotment of the alternate land the possession of the petitioners over the land over which the right of the respondents has been recognized be protected. This being in the domain of pure discretion of the departmental Officers cannot be dealt with or interfered in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.