' The petitioner was granted lease of the land in dispute for five years on 22-6-1966 but no formal Dakhal was granted to him. In 1968 lease for 10 years was granted of this very land in auction to one Muhammad Amin. The petitioner agreed to become tenant under will under said Muhammad Amin. The petitioner, however, challenged the order of cancellation of his lease upto the Board of Revenue. The learned Member (Colonies) vide his order, dated 10-2-1971 accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Collector with the observations that if the contention of the petitioner was true, he may be considered for allotment under the 15 years scheme which had then been promulgated by the Government provided he was otherwise eligible under the said scheme. The case of the petitioner was taken up afresh by the Collector, but his application was rejected on 30- 12-1974. The Collector found that the land was no longer available as it had already been leased out to Muhammad Amin and, secondly, thus the 15 years lease scheme had come to an end and no allotment could be made under that scheme. The petitioner challenged the orders in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed his appeal on 8-12-1975. His revision petition in the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 9-6-1981. This brings the petitioner to this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
2. As regards the case of the petitioner under 5 years scheme, even the Member Board of Revenue did not accept it when he remanded the case to the Collector on 10-2-1971. The case of the petitioner was to be considered only for allotment under the 15 years scheme, but obviously no allotment could be made to him under 15 years scheme as the scheme in the meantime had come to an end. When the matter came up before the Board of Revenue in the second round, the question of Dakhal was again examined. When the petitioner failed to produce any material in support of his contention that he was given Dakhal by the Collector, his contention was rejected.
The petitioner even now is not in possession of any material which may show that his possession of the land in dispute had been authorised by the Collector by way of a formal warrant. As regards the case of allotment under 15 years scheme, the scheme itself had come to an end and, therefore, no further allotments could be made under that scheme. The orders of the Revenue authorities, therefore, do not call for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.