' The land in question was allotted to the petitioners under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and they were even allowed to pay instalments towards grant of proprietary rights. Before the final instalment. was paid it came to the notice of the Board of Revenue that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was made on the basis of a wrong report as the land in question was not available for allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme as it was within the prohibited zone and a Charagah reserved for Abadi Deh. The Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers recalled the earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioners and directed that the alternate land be given to the petitioners under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4311 of 1982. The High Court found that petitioners were not heard.
The petitioners were directed to approach Secretary Colonies. The Board of Revenue has now passed fresh orders on 9-6-1983 again holding that the land in question was not available for allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme.
2. The Board of Revenue on scrutiny of record found that this land was Charagah throughout; had been reserved for village Abadi and was located within the prohibited zone. The petitioners have not been able to show that this finding was against the record. Their only reliance is on a report of 1957 showing this land to be 'baqaya sarkar', but this report is obviously against the revenue record.
It was this mistake that the Board of Revenue discovered and have tried to correct it. The Board had this power and the revenue record justified, in fact, necessitated the corrective measures. The petitioners can be granted alternate land and it has so been directed by the Board of Revenue.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the land is required for a school and has actually been allotted to the Education Department. He has stated that under the terms of the scheme itself the lease could be terminated at any stage without compensation if the land was required by the Government.
4. In view of the above considerations, the petitioners have no case. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. Writ refused.