' KHIZAR HAYAT, J.-This I.-C. A. Arises out of an order, dated 4th April, 1983 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissing the appellants' Writ Petition No, 462/1983 wherein the validity of orders, dated 16th January, 1982, 27th December, 1982 and 31st January, 1983 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, have been challenged.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellants allottees of State land under the Ejected Tenant Scheme in Chaks Nos. 125115-L, 129/15-L and 130/15-1, situated at a distance of 2/3 miles from the outer limits of Second Class Municipal Committee, namely, Mian Channu. According to para. 2 (viii) of the statement of conditions of the aforesaid scheme lands falling within 5 miles distance from Municipal Committees, Town Committees, etc. Were excluded from the operation of the scheme.
Since the land in dispute fell within the prescribed limits of prohibitory zone, therefore, the appellants were not considered eligible to get the proprietary rights in the said lands and the same was resumed. They challenged the order of resumption in the civil Courts, Multan, through filing a declaratory suit. During the pendency of the suit the Provincial Government issued instructions that the allottees who were not entitled to get proprietary rights because of the proximity (nearness) of the lands to the Municipalities/Mandi Towns, etc., if otherwise entitled to proprietary rights would be offered alternate areas elsewhere and would be treated for the sake of proprietary rights as if they have been settled on the alternate land/area from the very beginning of the grant. It was further directed that they would not be ejected from their existing tenancies till they were provided alternate tenancies elsewhere. They were, however, asked to apply for alternate land by 31st of March, 1983, which date was later on extended till 30th of June, 1983.
3. It so happened that Deputy Commissioner. Multan, through a letter No, 591/GAR, dated the 4th April, 1981 (Annexure "A/7") referred the appellant's case to Board of Revenue, Punjab and sought guidance as to what method for calculating the distance, of the appellant's land from the outer limits of the Municipal Committee, Mian Channu, should be adopted, because the appellants were insisting that in order to determine, whether their land fell within prohibited zone or not, the distance should be calculated by measuring the road distance. In reply thereto the Board of Revenue through its letter, dated 31st January, 1983, directed that the distance should be calculated through crow flight, i. e. Perpendicularly shortest distance from the outer limits of the local body. It was further directed that if the small part of the area falls within the prohibitory zone then the entire land of the village would be treated/considered as having fallen within the prohibited zone. Being dissatisfied the appellants filed Writ Petition No, 462/83 challenging the validity of the said decisions. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine by observing as follows :- (a)the measurement of distance in a crow-flight is quite reasonable as against measurement through zigzag roads ; (b)no objection can be taken to the instructions of the Board of Revenue regarding measuring the distances ;
(c) it is for the Government to fix the limits of the prohibited zone and can be changed at any stage by it ; and (d)the petitioners (appellants) were entitled to get alternate land in lieu of their grants which fell within the prohibited zone.
' Feeling aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge the instant Intra Court Appeal has been preferred.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and also, perused the documents appended with the appeal. The solitary object-:A lion raised, before us, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is, that the statement of conditions, dated 8th October, 1960 issued in the name of the Governor of West Pakistan fixing the limits of prohibited zone as "within five miles of the limits of Municipal Committee" could not be amended by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, reducing limits of prohibited zone to 3 miles through his letter, dated 12th December, 1972, therefore, the aforementioned amendment made by an incompetent authority is nullity in the eye of law, which cannot be enforced.
5. We have carefully examined the contention of the learned counsel and find that the letter, dated 12th December, 1972 challenged by the learned counsel has merely conveyed the decision taken by the Government as is clear from para. 2 of the said letter which runs as under :- "2. After careful consideration Government has now decided to fix the following uniform limits for the prohibited zones in all such schemes, so that there is no heart burning in any section of the farming community :--
(1) Corporations 10 miles
(2) 1st Class Municipal Committees 5 miles
(3) 2nd Class Municipal Committees 3 miles
(4) Town Committees 2 miles
(5) Railway Stations 1 mile.
6. Presumption of correctness is attached to all the official acts, therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the statement of conditions issued by the Government on 8th October, 1969 has been amended legally and competently by the Government of Punjab and none else and consequently, no exceptions whatsoever to its validity can be taken. Even otherwise learned counsel has failed to show as to how the amended limits of prohibited zone have affected the rights, if any, of the appellants adversely for they were held to be not eligible for conferment of the rights under the original unamended statement of conditions, dated 8th October, 1980, as the land granted to them situated, at a distance of 2/3 miles from the outer limits of the Municipal Committee of Mian Channu, falling within prohibited zone of 5 miles.
7. For what has been stated above, we find no valid reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, this Intra Court Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.