' The petitioner was holding a lease under Scheme `B' of the Livestock Breeding Scheme (1960) for area not exceeding 25 acres issued through notification of 3rd May, 1960. The land was allotted to the petitioner in 1964. The lease was resumed by the order of the District Collector, Sahiwal, dated 29th July, 1981 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to maintain a bull and 15 sheep as required by the Scheme. The petitioner went in appeal but his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, on 7th Jauuary, 1981. The revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 26th May, 1981. Through the present writ petition the resumption of tenancy has been challenged.
2. The land in question has been a Lambardari grant since before independence and it has continued to be so but for a brief period when it was resumed after the migration of Tehal Singh Lambardar to India. In 1948 this land was again allotted to Adalat Khan, a brother of the petitioner and on his death to the petitioner. Adalat Khan was appointed as a Lambardar after independence and on Adalat Khan's death, the petitioner has succeeded to the lambardari as well as to the lambardari grant. The present lease is, however, governed by the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme.
3. On the resumption of the tenancy from the name of the petitioner this, land was allotted to Lt.- Gen. Sardar Farooq Shaukat Khan Lodhi. Lt.-en. S. F. S. K. Lodhi has been impleaded as respondent No, 4 on a petition moved by him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General and also the learned counsel for the respondent No,
4. The discussion has been narrowed down by the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, passed in revision on 26th May, 1981. As to the charge of violation of the terms of the lease, the learned Member has held that the breach has been rectified to the extent of maintaining the bull, though it has not been so rectified in the case of sheep. The learned Member was also conscious of the requirement of a notice to the petitioner of rectifying the breach, but held that this irregularity was cured, on account of the protracted inquiry and the omission of the petitioner to rectify the breach during the period. The short question which requires consideration, therefore is whether the tenancy could be resumed without the notice for rectification of the breach of conditions.
' Para. 26 of the Scheme clearly provides for a notice for rectification. The mere fact that the enquiry had continued for 5 months is no substitute for giving an opportunity to a tenant to rectify the breach. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the petitioner had been contending throughout that under the terms and conditions of the tenancy he was not required to maintain 15 sheep. Para. 11 of the Scheme requires the tenant to maintain one cow/buffalo approved by the Officer incharge of the Scheme. It also provides that the Animal Husbandry Department may require the maintenance of one bull/bull-buffalo instead of a cow/buffalo, if it is considered necessary in the interest of livestock husbandry of the local area. This shows that the conditions as they were originally applicable to the Scheme provided only for maintaining a cow or a buffalo, or a bull, instead of a cow, but not for maintaining 15 sheep. The contention of the petitioner that he was not required to maintain 15 sheep in addition to bull, therefore, was not without any basis. The condition of maintaining 15 sheep alongwith the bull was imposed by the Government in 1973 through the instructions issued by the Governor. The petitioner's lease of 10 years came to an end under those terms in 1974. Any further extension could be burdened with additional conditions and in the present case the extension of the lease after 1974 carried with it the additional condition of maintaining 15 sheep. I am, therefore, in no doubt that under the terms applicable to the petitioner after 1974 he was required to maintain 15 sheep as well as the bull. The petitioner nevertheless has not maintained the 15 sheep even though he has been agitating that he was not required to do so.
The petitioner claims that he had no notice of the change in conditions of 1973, but even at its worst it cannot be called a wilful disregard of the conditions. What is more important is that the fact the learned Member, Board of Revenue also realised the requirement of notice for rectification, as indeed is provided for in para. 26, though he thinks that the irregularity was cured.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No, 4 has vehemently argued that in resuming the tenancy the Collector has not acted under para. 26 of the Scheme but under para. 29 of the same Scheme. Under this para. According to the learned counsel, the Collector is free to act and resume the tenancy even without a notice. I am afraid, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for a number of reasons. The Scheme as designed gives a successive progression of various conditions. Para. 26 provides for imposition of penalties and resumption of tenancies ; para. 27 deals with arbitration by the Commissioner in case of any difference or dispute between the Government and the tenant ; para. 28 deals.With damages and para. 29 deals with re-entry by the Collector. Even though the text of para. 29 does not specifically say so yet considering the structure of Livestock Breeding Scheme the only reasonable construction to be placed on para. 29 is that it is the final stage of re-entry on the land by the Collector in pursuance of order of resumption passed under para 26. Under para. 26 the Collector acts when the Government is satisfied that a tenant has committed a breach of condition. While acting under para. 26 under the control of the Government the Collector is under a legal compulsion to give an opportunity to the tenant to rectify the breach of the condition, it is not reasonable to assume that for acting on his own, the Collector has been given wider and arbitrary powers. Finally, even if it is assumed that the powers enjoyed by the Collector under para. 29 are independent of any other provision of the Scheme, the contradictory provisions of para. 26 and para. 29 have to be reconciled as the Scheme can be read only as one. In reconciling the inconsistency, if any, the interpretation which favours the citizen as against the State has to be preferred. In the present case since a tenant is entitled to a notice for rectification under para. 26 it shall have to be read also in para.29 which, according to the learned counsel, does not place any fetters on the powers of the Collector.
7. In view of the above considerations, this is my considered opinion that the tenancy of the petitioner could not be resumed without giving him a chance of rectifying the breach. The order of resumption passed by the Collector was, therefore, against law and without lawful authority.
8. It has been argued by the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the writ petition is not competent as the orders impugned have been passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction. I am afraid in the presence of a clear illegality and the consequential injustice where the tenancy of long standing has been resumed without affording the tenant with an opportunity to rectify the breach, to which he was legally entitled, the powers of the Court of a judicial review should not be found wanting.
9. In view of the above considerations, the writ petition is allowed and the order of resumption passed by the Collector is set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.