' This writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 was directed against the order, dated 13-6-1967 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, whereby he upheld the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner, dated 18-5-1967 and of the Collector, Sargodha, dated 4-2-1967 and 29-4-1967 resuming the land in dispute from the petitioners on the ground that it fell within 10 miles radius of Municipal limits of Sargodha.
2. Facts briefly stated are that the petitioners were allotted land in dispute under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1953-54. Vide Memo. No. Col-8/24-57(4167), dated 8-10-1960 Government decided to grant proprietary rights to the allottees of State land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme.
Para. 8 of this memo. provided that the land falling Within ten miles of the limits of first class Municipality and within five miles of the limits of other Municipalities, Town Committees, Cantonment Board, Notified Area Committee, shalt be excluded from the operation of the scheme regarding the conferment of proprietary rights. Colony Assistant/Collector by his order, dated 4-2- 1967 resumed the land in dispute on the ground that it was situate within ten miles of the limits of Municipal Committee, Sargodha and that being so, the petitioners were not entitled to purchase the land under the aforementioned scheme. Petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division by his order, dated 24-2-1967 and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision after making thorough enquiry about the location of Chak No. 110-SB in which the land in dispute is situate vis-a-Vis municipal limits of Sargodha. On remand, the learned Collector after holding the necessary enquiry came, to the conclusion that the land in dispute lay within ten miles distance of outer limits of Municipal Committee, Sargodha and he, therefore, by his order, dated 29-4-1967 upheld his previous order. Petitioner preferred an .appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner by his order, dated 18-5- 1967 upholding the order of the learned Collector, dated 29-4-1967. Revision petition filed by the petitioners also met no better fate and was dismissed by Member, Board of Revenue by his order, dated 13-6-1967. As stated above, these orders have been questioned in the, present Constitutional petition.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon notification, dated 21-6-1965 issued by the then Government of West Pakistan, Basic Democracies, Social Welfare and Local Government Department (Annexure "C") that Sargodha was declared as first class municipality by this notification and that prior to the issuance of the notification, dated 21-6-1965, Sargodha was a second class municipality. He has further submitted that Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has issued a memo. No. 3040-78/1818-CL-III on 29-6-1978 stating that previously municipal limits existing at the time of passing of final orders by the Commissioner or the Collector (as the case may be) were taken into account for the purpose of grant of proprietary rights to the eligible lessees under the Ejected Tenants/Grow More Food Schemes but the matter has been reconsidered on the analogy of orders passed in respect of tenancies under various other schemes and Board of Revenue has decided that in future, municipal limits existing At the time of making a provision of proprietary rights or subsequently at the time of alternate allotment under the Ejected Tenants/Grow More Food Schemes should be determined for the purpose of conferment of proprietary rights. Relying on this decision of the Board of Revenue, it has been argued by the learned counsel that in the year 1960 when the decision to confer proprietary rights on the allottees under Ejected Tenants Scheme was taken, Municipal Committee, Sargodha was a second class municipality with obviously narrower limits than at the time when the impugned decision was taken when it had become a first class municipality with extended limits and that being so in the light of the fresh decision of the Board of Revenue, petitioners are entitled to the consideration of their case with reference to municipal limits existing in the year 1960 when the notification for conferment of proprietary rights was issued.
4. Learned Advocate-General submits that he has no objection if this case is remanded to Board of Revenue for reconsideration in the light of the aforementioned decision of the Board of Revenue contained in Memo. No. 3040-78/1818-CL-II, dated 29-6-1978.
5. In view of the position aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed and the case is remitted back to the respondent with the direction that petitioner's case be considered afresh in the light of the aforementioned memo., dated 29-6-1978. In these circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Writ issued.