' The land in question was on lease with one Muhammad Hussain under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme of 1952 since 18-2-1953. By a private arrangement he sublet it to Barkat Ali respondent No. 3 and his son Abdul Rehman respondent No.
4. On account of the sub-letting the Collector resumed the tenancy on 29-3-1962 as it violated the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. On appeal the matter was remanded back to the Collector by the Additional Commissioner on 30-7-1962. On remand the Collector again ordered resumption of the lease. He however, recommended to the Board of Revenue, the grant of lease to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on account of the investment made by them on it. This recommendation was not accepted by the Board of Revenue and the Collector finally resumed the tenancy on 12-7-1966. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the orders in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1966 on the ground that the Board of Revenue had not given them a hearing before rejecting the recommendation of the Collector. The writ petition was dismissed on 7-6-1967. They then applied for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 5-10-1967. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the orders of the Board of Revenue were administra tive in nature and as no vested rights were involved in the case, it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue to give an opportunity for hearing. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 then filed a suit but it was dismissed on 30-3-1972. In appeal the District Court vide its order, dated 22-10-1973 passed an interim order of maintaining status quo. During this period on 20-12- 1973 the present petitioners came into picture as the Collector granted lease to the petitioners as an alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme. Later on an application moved by the respondents the Board of Revenue granted land to them on 22-6-1974 by imposing a penalty of Rs.100. The present petitioners challenged the orders in Writ Petition No. 648 of 1974 on the ground that the orders have been passed behind their back. This writ petition was allowed and it was held that the petitioners could not be deprived of whatever they obtained without being heard and without being associated with the proceedings. On that, this matter came up before Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), in suo motu revision. He vide his order, dated 30-9-1975 held that the land vested in the Government and was available for disposal. This order was challenged in writ petition No. 388 of 1975 and was set aside on the ground that Mr. S.M. Nasim's appointment as Member Board of Revenue was not lawful. The High Court judgment was challenged in appeal in the Supreme Court by Barkat Ali etc. respondents, but the appeal was dismissed on 9-2-1980. It was, however, observed, by the Supreme Court that the suo motu revisional proceedings shall be deemed to be pending for decision. In pursuance of this observation fresh orders were passed by Mr. A. K. Khalid, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 14-10-1980 which are being assailed in the present writ petition.
2. Mr. A .K. Khalid, Member (Colonies) has found that the petitioners have no claim over the land as the original lease on the basis of which they were granted land in question, as an alternate land, never came into effect, as possession had not been delivered to them by the Collector under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. As regards the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 it was found that they had been in possession since 1953 and had made the land cultivable ,after hard labour. The lease in their favour was, thus regularised and they were allowed to purchase the proprietary rights in the land. They have since deposited the amount and the conveyance deed has also been executed.
3. The case presents two distinct questions, the claim of the present petitioners to secure the lease as an alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme and the claim of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to have the original lease regularised. The rival claims stand on their own merit and not on the weakness of the other, except for availability of the land.
4. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are claiming this land as an alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme on account of the lease granted to them in respect of some other land in 1959. This lease has its own history. It was granted to them on 22-8-1959 but the possession was not delivered to them under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. They entered upon the land, nevertheless and on that account the Collector withdrew the orders of lease on 19-11-1960. The petitioners challenged these orders in appeal but the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 27-1-1962. Their revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 23-1-1963 but the learned Member allowed them to remain in possession until the harvesting of the Rabi crop which they had sown. They did not vacate the land and filed a civil suit but the suit was dismissed on 23-7-1967. The appeal was dismissed on 5-10-1967. They came-in revision to the High Court but the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 31-1-1972. The matter has not been agitated any further. This narration clearly shows that the petitioner cannot claim alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme because they had no lease in their favour, the alternate of which they claim out of the land now in dispute. The Board of Revenue was, therefore, justified in disentitling the petitioners from securing the lease of this land.
5. The case of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, stands on a different footing. The subletting in their favour by Muhammad Hussain did not find favour with the revenue authorities.
The District Collector, however, recommended that they may be granted the land on the same terms independent of the subletting made by Muhammad Hussain. This recommendation was not accepted and the petitioners made a grievance of it up to the Supreme Court on the ground that they were not heard. Their plea was not accepted as the matter before the Board of Revenue was administrative in nature which did not call for an opportunity of hearing in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1966 and by the Supreme Court in C.P.S.L.A. No. 251 of 1967 stand in the way of the respondents in securing the allotment of the same land. In my opinion this is not quite correct. The only question before the High Court and later before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to a hearing by the Board of Revenue before rejecting the recommendations of the District Collector. The land stood resumed in favour of the State and the State was within their rights to dispose of the land in any manner they were best advised. It cannot be said that the respondents were disentitled from securing the transfer of this land for all times to come.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Mr. A.K. Khalid, Member Board of Revenue has taken into account the observations of Mr. S.M. Nasim in. determining the possession of the respondents in the land, while the orders of Mr. S.M. Nasim had to be ignored as they were passed without lawful authority. This argument can go only part of the way. A reference to an order which is a nullity cannot form basis of any judgment but the fact remains that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 got the possession of this land on its subletting by said Muhammad Hussain as early as 1956. Mr. A.K. Khalid, Member has only taken note of the possession of a long-standing and the investment made on the land by the respondents. This cannot be objected to.
7. The petitioners attack the impugned orders, among others, also on the ground that they were passed on the direction of a Chief Minister. It is submitted that it was in pursuance of the orders of Mr. Hanif Ramey of 11-11-1974 that an order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 27-11-1974 to maintain status quo. This argument, however, is not available to the petitioners as Mr. Hanif Ramey was not in picture on 14-10-1980 when the impugned order was passed by Mr. A.K. Khalid, Member and it cannot be assumed that the orders passed by Mr. Hanif Ramey on 11-11-1974 had anything to do with the orders passed by Mr.A.K. Khalid, Member Board of Revenue, on 14-10-1980.
'In view of the above considerations it is quite clear that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of the land in question as an alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme. They cannot, therefore, make a grievance of the transfer of this land to the respondents. As regards the respondents, the authority of the State to dispose of its land cannot be questioned. It can retrace its steps and regularise the lease. In doing so, the State has acknowledged the possession of a long-standing and the investments made over it by the respondents for nearly a quarter of century between mid-fifties to 1980. I find no illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.