' This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 725/76 and 726/76 as these involve the same point.
2. State land was under the lease of one Sarfraz Ahmad, after expiry of which the land was resumed by the Collector on 18th June, 1974. It is stated that the petitioners who were cultivating the land, appeared before the Collector and asked for its allotment but no action was taken. Then they applied to the Board of Revenue asking for relief and restraining the Collector from auctioning the land. The Board of Revenue stopped the auction of the land vide memo., dated 6th July, 1974.
Another application was filed before the Board of Revenue on 11th April, 1975. On 12th December, 1974 the Board of Revenue issued instructions that "instead of leasing the available banjar State land through open auction, it may be leased out for a period of 5 years in lots ranging from 124 to 50 acres depending upon its fertility, to the deserving landless person/owners of land less than 4 acres who are also self-cultivators." On their further application the Board of Revenue on 17th July, 1975 issued a memo. Saying that "the State land so resumed from the ex-lessees under Tube-well Scheme, should be included in the Schedule of five years lease scheme, provided it is situated outside the prohibited zone". Apprehending that they might not get the land, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No, 1821 of 1975 making the grievance that the order dated 17th July, 1975 was not being implemented. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that "they should approach the Board of Revenue for getting the said order executed." This is vide order dated 18th August, 1975.
In the meanwhile some of the land had been allotted to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7. The petitioners challenged the order by means of an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. They also applied to the Board of Revenue complaining that instead of considering their request the land had been allotted to one Muhammad Nawaz. Vide memo., dated 2nd October, 1975, it was stated that "Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has desired that the land in question should be leased out under five years lease scheme to the sitting tenants if they are landless or owners of less than four acres of land and the land is situated outside prohibited zone.------A report of the correct position and the action taken may be sent to the Board of Revenue within a week." The appeal of the petitioners was taken up by the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed on the ground that the land had been given to the respondents "as alternate area under Grow More Food Scheme in accordance with the general policy of Government and no case has been made out before me on behalf of the appellants as to under what law/rules/instructions they were entitled to exclude the respondents from allotment of alternate area under Grow More Food Scheme and to get the same on five years lease". On the submission that the matter was before the Board of Revenue, the learned Additional Commissioner disposed of the case with the observation that his order will be subject to the result of the order passed by the higher authorities. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner is dated 6th November, 1975. The petitioners filed a revision petition which has been dismissed with the observations that "The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were tenants under the previous lessee during 1973-74 as such were eligible to get the lease at concessional rent during Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975. Had the lease been given to them, then they would have become lessee of the land during 1974-75 and then being landless self-cultivators were eligible to get extension of lease for 1975-76. If all these contentions be conceded for arguments sake even then the petitioners have no case, because they would have been temporary lessees whereas the land has been given to the respondents under a permanent scheme, and under the condition of temporary leases, those are liable to cancellation if the land is required for a permanent scheme or for public purposes. In view of these circumstances there is no merit in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed." This is vide order, dated 4th March, 1976. This is challenged by the petitioners through the above-titled Constitutional petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in view of the applications of the petitioners for lease of the land and stay of the auction of the same, the land should have been, after resumption, allotted in their favour. Expressly the Board of Revenue on 17th July, 1975 had directed that these lands should be included in the schedule of five years lease scheme and when the Collector allotted the land to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7 on 1st July, 1975, the petitioners brought the matter before the Board of Revenue who directed on 2nd October, 1975 that "the land in question should be leased out under five years lease scheme to the sitting tenants if they are landless or owners of less than four acres of land" and the petitioners were such. Further, the dismissal of their appeal vide order dated 6th November, 1975 was subject to the orders of the Board of Revenue and in the presence of the orders of the Board of Revenue above-mentioned, the petitioners were entitled to be leased out the land. The fact that when they brought the matter before the Board of Revenue, the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue rejected their revision petition on the ground that the land had been given to the respondents on a permanent scheme, is not valid because the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue did not take into account the earlier order of the Board of Revenue, dated 2nd October, 1975 which had directed that the land should be leased out under five years scheme.
4. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land should have been included in the five years scheme, in view of the memo., dated 17th July, 1975 and especially dated 2nd October, 1975 wherein it was directed on the application of the petitioners that the land should be leased out under the five years scheme. Allotment was made in favour of the respondents Nos. 5 to 7 by the Collector on 1st July, 1975, prior to the first memo., dated 17th July, 1975. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the respondents were given land as alternate area under the Grow More Food Scheme. When the matter was brought up in revision before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, he came to the conclusion that the petitioners had no case because at best they would have been temporary lessees whereas the land has been given to the respondents under a permanent scheme and under the condition of temporary leases, those are liable to cancellation if the land is required for a permanent scheme or for the public purposes."
The reliance of the petitioners on the memo-randa of the Board of Revenue is not sound in these proceedings. Instructions issued on the administrative side may confer benefit on some. But when the matter comes up on judicial side, competing interests of others based on similar other instructions, require weighing up and the rights of the parties are determined in the context of the totality of the instructions and the law applicable. In the case in hand, instructions issued on the behest of the petitioners were in the absence of the contesting respondents. These have been considered on the judicial side in the presence of both the parties. Alongwith the instructions providing for preference under a permanent scheme. Therefore, the matter having been determined by the competent authorities under the jurisdiction conferred on them by law, no interference is called for in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the above- mentioned petitions are dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.