1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--Civil Petition No, 680 of 1984 has been filed by Ratallun for leave to appeal against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd April, 1984 whereby his writ petition was dismissed and Civil Petition No, 681 of 1984 has been filed by Qutab Ali petitioner for leave to appeal and is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23rd April, 1984 whereby his writ petition had been dismissed. Since similar points of fact and law are involved in the two petitions, these are being taken up and disposed of together.
2. ' The brief facts contained in Civil Petition No, 680 of 1984 are that a lot of State land was allotted under Well Sinking Scheme in Tehsil Samundri District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) to Ratallun petitioner in 1961. An objection was raised by a Member of Governors Inspection Team whereupon the Collector examined the allotment and found that the land was commanded and that therefore the allotment made in his favour was initially defective. Consequently the Collector cancelled the allotment. The appeal failed and the revision also failed before Member, Board of Revenue. The orders were challenged by way of writ petition which was likewise dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. ' The brief facts contained in Civil Petition No, 681 of 1984 are that a lot of State land in Tehsil Samundri, District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) was allotted to Qutab Ali petitioner under Well Sinking Scheme. In his case also a representative of the Governor's Inspection Team scrutinised the allotment and pointed out that about 20 acres of the same were commanded and as such could not be allotted under the Scheme. The Collector therefore ordered resumption of the allotted land but the appeal of Qutab Ali petitioner succeeded. The Additional Commissioner observed that the petitioner be allowed to complete the period of his lease i.e, 20 years but he declared that so far as the disputed portion of the land was concerned the petitioner would not be eligible for the grant of proprietary rights. This portion of the order was challenged by way of a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue who while exercising suo motu powers of revision issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of the commanded portion of the lot granted to him against the provisions of the Scheme should not be cancelled. Eventually he set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and cancelled the allotment of 20 Acres of land from the name of the petitioner. The order of the Member, Board of Revenue was challenged by way of writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
4. ' In both the above cases it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that allotments were validly made in favour of the two petitioners, and that the area was neither commanded nor commandable and therefore it should have not been resumed. It was next argued that under the statement of conditions the allotment could be resumed only when there was a breach on the part of the allottee. In the instant case there was no such breach on the part of any of the allottees. It was further submitted that in the statement of conditions if there was any dispute then, there was an arbitration clause which indicated that such matter required to be resolved through arbitration.
5. ' It was next argued that in any case the Collector was not competent to order resumption or a part thereof even if there was misrepresentation or fraud. All these arguments had been raised before the learned Single Judge who has meticulously attended to them. In both these cases the Revenue authorities from Collector upto Board of Revenue had given a finding of fact that either the whole area or a portion thereof was commanded and this finding of fact is based on fair departmental interpretation which cannot be interfered with as commanded area was outside the ambit of the Scheme relating to the allotment of State land on Well Sinking conditions. The High Court therefore was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the Revenue authorities were fully justified to order resumption and that there was no need for arbitration because arbitration could only be invoked if the basic allotment was valid or the dispute had arisen out of the Statement of Conditions. But if the allotment was initially void under the Scheme, the competent authority was justified in resuming the same. In any case both the allotments of lots made in favour of the petitioners had been made for a period of 20 years and now even that period has expired. Since this is the position no interference is called for. As a result both these petitions are hereby dismissed.