1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against judgment dated 7-3-1978 of the Lahore High Court; whereby appellants' Constitutional petition against an order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, arising out of a lease by the Punjab Government, was dismissed.
2. The appellants were lessees of the land in dispute for 20 years from the Government of the Punjab since 1961 under Live Stock Breeding Scheme, framed vide Notification No.Col. 7/1.1/58, dated 3-5- 1960, under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. They surrendered the said land under Land Reforms Regulation No.115. The Provincial Government acting under para. 19 of the Regulation leased out this land to the appellants on year to year basis at ten times the land revenue. On an application by respondents 3 and 4, claiming to be the tenants, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction cancelled this lease and ordered the distribution of the land under paragraph 18 of the Regulation to the tenants. The petitioners'
3. Constitutional petition in the High Court failed and their Appeal having been dismissed as incompetent they were granted leave to appeal for examination, inter alia, whether the Federal Land Commission could exercise revisional jurisdiction and whether the cancellation of lease granted by the Provincial Government, was lawful.
4. This appeal was heard alongwith other appeals including one arising out of the Lahore judgment reported in Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari and 3 others v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 4 others PLD 1977 Lab. 461 as the question of jurisdiction of the Federal Land Commission was common to them. The said case has not yet been decided. This appeal however can now be decided as the other legal questions involved therein to a large extent, have been decided by this Court in Talib Din and others v. The Chief Land Commissioner and others PLD 1984 SC 453. It has been held therein as follows: "The ownership rights of the Provincial Government in land remained untouched and unaffected by the Regulation. The authorities established there under could not exercise any jurisdiction or authority over such proprietary interest of the Government. The tenants, actual cultivators in possession, could not claim from the Land Commission transfer to them of any share of such proprietary interest belonging to the Government."'
5. Although that matter was considered with reference to the M.L.R.64 but in so far as the present case is concerned, the position under M.L.R.115 is not much different. Paragraphs Nos.15 and 19 of this Regulation read as follows: "15. Stud and live-stock farms.--All areas under stud or live--stock arms, whether State Land or otherwise, allowed to be retained under the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Repealed Regulation, shall, whether or not the areas are held by the persons who held them at the commencement of that Regulation or by those to whom leases were granted there under or any other law, be resumed and vest in Government free from any encumbrance or charge whatsoever: Provided that where any compensation in respect of any such farm has already been calculated and sanctioned under the provisions of Paragraph 17 of the Repealed Regulation, the said compensation shall be payable to the owners of the said farms.
6. "19. Utilisation of land under orchards, stud or livestock farms.---Land under orchards, stud or livestock arms which is resumed and vests in Government under the provisions of paragraph 15 may be utilised by Government in such manner as it deems fit: Provided that if in the public interest Government decides to lease out any such land the person from whom it was resumed shall have the right of first option to the grant of lease of the land resumed, from him or of such portion thereof as the Government may determine of the whole or such part of or area from, such land, as the Government may deem fit."
7. The combined reading of these provisions would show' that the land in dispute which was granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 by the Provincial Government on lease as livestock farm, vested in the Government after resumption under paragraph 15. Thereafter under proviso to paragraph 19 it was lawfully granted on lease to the appellants. The learned Judge in the High Court, with respect, fell into error in assuming that this land not being the one retained under M.L.R.64 was not covered by paragraph 15. He, it appears, did not notice the amendment in paragraph 15 made by Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Act XXX -of 1974) which added the following, with retrospective effect:- "whether or not the areas are held by the persons who held them at the commencement of that Regulation or by those to whom leases were granted there under or any other law,"
8. The Chairman, Federal Land Commission also fell into error when assuming that under para. 18 of M.L.R.115, the land in dispute was to be distributed to the tenants. The said paragraph dealt with the lane vesting in the Government by virtue of paras. 13 and 14 of the Regulation. The land in question had vested in the Government under, para. 15 and that to in a different capacity as held in the case oil Talib Din PLD 1984 SC 453. Paragraph 18 therefore was not attracted to this case. The Government having rightly acted under paragraph 19, as discussed above, the order of the Federal Land Commission impugned in the High Court for this reason alone was without lawful, authority.
9. The appeal is allowed. The High Court judgment as also the order of Federal Land Commission are accordingly set aside with no order as to costs.