1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED J.-This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over Horse Breeding Tenancy In the District of Sahiwal.
2. The petitioner, respondent No. 1 and some other persons bad applied to the Collector for allotment of the said tenancy. The District Remount Officer. Sahiwal, recommended three applicants, namely, respondent No. I, the petitioner and one Muhammad Sharif for the tenancy. The Collector, by his order dated the 4th of January 1971, granted the tenancy to the petitioner.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of the Collector, but the appeal was dismissed on the 5th of April 1971. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and it was accepted by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue on the 29th of February 1972. By the order of the Member, the grant made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the tenancy was given to respondent No. 1. The requisite mutation was made on the 24th of March 1972.
4. The petitioner having been unsuccessful in his revision petition from the said order of the Member, Board of Revenue, filed a Constitution petition before the Lahore High Court but it was dismissed.
5. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended before the High Court that Martial Law Regulation No. 115 had been promulgated on the 11th `of March 1972, and that by virtue of paragraph 15 thereof all areas under "stud farms" or "livestock farms" stood resumed and vested in the Govern--ment.
6. Consequently, there could not be any allotment or grant in favour of respondent No. 1. The High Court rejected this plea on the ground that the right to allotment/grant having already matured in favour of respondent No. 1 as a result of the final order of the Member, Board of Revenue, any subsequent change in the law could not benefit the petitioner and that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party inasmuch as the question of resump--petition of the land after allotment to the respondent was a matter between him and the Government. It was held that the said paragraph 15 of the said Martial Law Regulation did not apply to the present case. The Constitution petition was accordingly dismissed.
7. It has been contended before us that the aforesaid grants are governed by the Statement of Conditions issued by the Government of Punjab in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as contained in the Government of the Punjab Development Department (Revenue) Notification No. 2965 dated the 1st of July 1949.
8. It has been submitted that Condition No. 27 of the Statement of Con--ditions attached finality to the decision of the Commissioner and, therefore, no revision lay to the Board of Revenue under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
9. There is no substance in this contention. Condition No. 27 is as follows:--- "27. Arbitration.-(a) If any question, or difference of objection whatsoever shall at any time hereafter arise between Government and the tenant in any way touching or concerning this tenancy, or of the construction, meaning operation or effect or any clause herein contained or as to the rights, duties or liabilities of either party under or by virtue of this grant or touching the subject-matter of this tenancy, or arising out of or in relation thereto, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter has been hereinbefore provided for and has been so decided, the matter in difference shall be referred for the arbitration of the Commissioner, who shall have power to decide any matter so referred, including the following questions -
(i) whether any other provision has been made in these presents for the decision of any matter and if such provision has been made, whether it has been finally decided accordingly, and
(ii) whether the tenancy should be terminated or has been rightly terminated, and what are or will be the rights and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination.
(b) The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding, and when any matter so referred to arbitration involves a claim for the award, increase or reduction of a sum of money by way of compensation or any other payment or recovery of money, only the amount decided by the arbitrator shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred."
10. The next contention advanced by the petitioner is also not available to him for the same reason.
11. This contention is that as proviso (i) to subsec--petition (1) of section 161 of the Land Revenue Act bars a second appeal, the revision petition which was disposed of like an appeal should not have been entertained by the hoard of Revenue.
12. It was next contended that paragraph 15 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 applied to the present case, and therefore, the land should have been resumed by the Government as it could not be granted to respondent No. 1. This contention has been rightly rejected by the High Court. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.