' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No, 1919 of 1967 and Writ Petition No, 1129 of 1968 involving common questions of law and facts.
2. The petitioners were allotted the land in dispute under the Grow More Food Scheme. It is conceded by the counsel appearing for the parties that all of them were granted proprietary rights by the Collector by his order dated the 20th of October, 1962. The Collector, however, subsequently, under the directions of the Board of Revenue, by his order dated the 24th of September, 1965 resumed the land on the ground that the petitioners had cultivated nominal area of a few Kanals and that they were defaulters in depositing rent. The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeals filed by the petitioners on the 17th of November, 1965 by holding that since no notice was issued to them, no breach could, therefore, be charged against them. The State filed revision- petitions against these orders which came up for hearing before Mr. S. Hussain Haider, learned Member, Board of Revenue. He accepted the contention of the petitioners-respondents that the revision-petitions were not competent. He, however, decided to exercise suo mow jurisdiction and passed the impugned order whereby order of the Additional Commissioner dated the 17th of November, 1965 was set aside and that of the Collector dated the 24th of September, 1965 was restored. These are writ petitions against that order.
3. The petitions merit to be accepted on the short ground that after the Collector had passed the order by which the petitioners were given the proprietary rights the land could be resumed only if that order had been set aside in due course of law. The order could be set aside either in appeal or revision or review. Admittedly it was not set aside either in appeal or revision. In order that he could review the order it was necessary for him to comply with the provision contained in the Colonization of the Government Lands Act read with the Land Revenue Act. He did not obtain the necessary permission of the Commissioner. Moreover, the direction given by the Board of Revenue was only to further examine the case and scrutinise which could not in any way, be considered a direction for the review of the earlier order. The order of the. Collector dated the 24th of September, 1965 is, therefore, a nullity and his earlier order by which he granted the proprietary rights to the petitioners remained operative.
4. The Member, Board of Revenue, in the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated the 17th of November 1965, and restored that of the Collector dated the 24th of September, 1965. As I have observed that the order of the Collector was a nullity and, therefore, the question of its restoration did not arise, the order of the Additional Commissioner, though in favour of the petitioners, being also an order in appeal against the order which was a nullity the question of setting it aside also did not arise.
5. The order of Member, Board of Revenue, suffers also from another defect. If he thought that the revision-petitions filed by the State against the order of the Additional Commissioner were not competent, the proper course for him was to have dismissed those revision-petitions and issued a notice to the petitioners in the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction. The petitioners admittedly were not given any/ such notice.
6. The Government has now issued a circular letter No, 1488-71/ 1217-CL-III, dated the 26th of April, 1971 directing that "without any reference to the date of allotment and the period of the termination of the lease all allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme shall be granted proprietary rights provided that they fulfil the terms and conditions on which leases were granted." By virtue of the Government the allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme have become entitled to proprietary rights. The Government directive contained in letter No, 1488-71/1217-CL-III, dated the 26th of April, 1971 came under examination before the High Court in Muhammad Ayub v. M. Yaqoob etc.. It has also been considered by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Shafi v. Member, Board of Revenue etc. (Civil Appeal No, 243 of 1969 decided on the 8th of April, 1975) and given effect to.
7. The petitions are accepted and the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, is set aside and the Collector is directed to execute all documents as may be necessary for the grant of proprietary rights to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Before parting with the case I would like to observe that respondents lqbal and others are Islamabad . When they were allotted-the lands in dispute the order dated thejecteese 24th of September, 1965 passed, by the Collector, resuming the lands of the petitioners had been set aside by the Additional Commissioner and the petitioners were in lawful possession of the lands, being their allottees, and also had the right to acquire proprietary rights by virtue of the order of the Collector dated the 20th of October, 1962. The allotment was made to the respondents in the absence of the petitioners and they only were informed of it by the Board of Revenue. Since the allotment in favour of the petitioners were subsisting the allotment in favour of the respondents was a nullity. I have already observed that the original order of the Collector by which the petitioners were granted the proprietary rights had also not been validly set aside by the Collector and was still subsisting notwithstanding the order of the Collector dated the 24th of September, 1965. For that reason also the allotment made in favour of the respondents was without any lawful basis. The respondents have already suffer irreparable loss by the fact that they were ejected from their lands in Islamabad. They bad to be rehabilitated. It is unfortunate that the lands in dispute, were allotted to them which could not validly be done. Board of Revenue and the Colony Authorities may look into their case favourably and try to provide them with alternate allotment as soon as possible to alleviate their miseries. 1