In the year 1958-59 land measuring 78 Kanlas 10 Marlas in Squares No. 68, 69 and 70 situated in Chak No.163-N.B. Tehsil and District Sargodha were allotted to the petitioner under the Grow More Food Scheme. The lease was for a period of three years. While it was extendable, in the case of the petitioner, it was not extended after 1961 as the petitioner did not make payment of the Lagan. It appears that the petitioner continued to be in possession in spite of the termination of the lease, when in 1977 Killas 1 and 2 of Square No.69 were granted on temporary lease to Muhammad Ali respondent No.2. Later on this lease was extended for five years. The petitioner challenged the orders of grant of lease to respondent No. 2 before the Collector but the Collector rejected the plea of the petitioner on 3-11-1977. He challenged the orders in appeal but the appeal too was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 31-12-1977. He did not pursue the matter of grant of lease to respondent No.2 any further but applied to the Collector for restoration of the original lease relying on a notification of the Government of Punjab issued on 26-4-1971. This notification provided for the restoration of the Grow More Food leases and the conferment of proprietary rights provided the lessees fulfilled the terms and conditions of the lease. All subsequent leases of the areas stood cancelled automatically unless the land in question had been allotted under any permanent Scheme. In the present case since two Killas out of the leasehold of the petitioner were allotted to respondent No.2 for temporary cultivation the notification of 26th April, 1971 when applied to the case of the petitioner resulted in restoration of the entire leasehold including the two killas granted to respondent No.2 for temporary cultivation. The orders of the Collector dated 28-1-1979 restoring the lease to the petitioner were challenged in appeal but the appeal was dismissed in default by the Additional Commissioner on 1-9-1979. The application for restoration was also dismissed on 18- 9-1979. The Board of Revenue, however, accepted the revision petition of respondent No.2 vide its order, dated 16-5-1981. This brings the petitioner to the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The case of the petitioner rests almost entirely on the notification of 26-4-1971. As stated above, it provides for the restoration of the tenancies by cancelling all subsequent leases of the lands in question. This notification was prompted by the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.658/66 and was issued as a letter of policy. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the question of lease of Killas No. 1 and 2 had attained finality when the appeal brought by the present petitioner against this lease was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 31-12-1977 and the petitioner did not pursue it any further. In my opinion these orders will not stand in the way of the petitioner as vested rights had accrued in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the notification of 26-4-1971. By virtue of this notification the lease granted to respondent No.2 stood automatically cancelled. The petitioner did not really have to challenge the grant of lease to the respondent No.2 as the lease to respondent No.2 could not subsist after the notification of 26-4-1971. Even otherwise the-question raised in the petitioner's appeal did not determine the rights of the petitioner under the Grow More Food Scheme, granted to him in pursuance of the above-mentioned notification.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent as also the learned Additional Advocate-General have pointed out that notification of 26-4-1971 had made a proviso and had made grant of proprietary rights contingent on the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the lease. It is argued that in the present case the Member h-as found that the petitioner was not in cultivating possession of the land after 1974 and was, therefore, guilty of breach of condition of non-cultivation. It is contended that in view of this breach the petitioner was, in any case, not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. In my opinion there is a fallacy in this argument. The lessees of State land whose leases had been terminated are to be restored to their leasehold, so much so, that A the lease of the land to other persons would automatically stand cancelled. The breach of condition of non-cultivation after the termination of lease, therefore, could not be held to be a breach in the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner's lease was terminated in 1962. He continued to be in possession until 1974 but in no case could be held responsible for non-cultivating of the land after 1962. The learned counsel for the respondent has made a half-hearted attempt to show that the petitioner did not cultivate the land even between 1959 and 1962 but there is no finding in this regard by any of the Revenue Authorities before whom the matter had been agitated time and again.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General has additionally pointed out that the petitioner's lease was terminated in 1962 as he did not pay lagan at that time. This breach again cannot stand in the way of the petitioner as obviously this breach is remediable and unless opportunity is given to the petitioner to remedy in the breach the lease cannot be resumed.
5. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The Board of Revenue did not take into account the effect of their own notification issued, on 26-4-1971 and, therefore, their orders cannot be sustained. The orders of 16-6-1981 passed by the Board of Revenue are, therefore, declared to be of no legal effect. The result is that the orders passed by the Collector on 28-1-1979 are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.