' By this. Judgment I propose to deal with and dispose of Writ Petition No,886 of 1981 (W.P. No, 697 of 1982/Multan) and Writ Petition No, 4687 of 1987 as they are between the same parties and essentially relate to the same controversy. The first of these writ petitions was instituted in February 1981 and questioned order dated 13th December, 1980 passed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore whereby he held that the petitioners were liable to pay enhanced land revenue under section 4 of the Punjab Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance (V of 1978) and sought a declaration that the petitioners as tenants under the Remount Breeding tenancies were not liable to pay aforementioned enhanced land revenue. During the pendency of this writ petition the Board of Revenue issued two Notifications Nos, 513/82/1217-CLI, dated 27-3-1982 and 513- 82/1221-CLI, dated 27-3-1982, which substituted clause 15 of Notification No, 512-70-704-CLI, dated 22-9-1990 and clause 17 of Notification No, 2965-C, dated 22-7-1941. The result was that lessees under the Stud Grants/Horse Breeding Schemes were exempted from payment of the whole of the land revenue.
' Before the writ petition could be finally heard, the Board of Revenue issued a Memorandum No, 1778-87/4194-CLI, dated 10-6-1987, whereby it was directed that substituted Notifications, referred to above, were prospective in nature and, therefore, the lessees under the aforementioned Schemes were liable to pay land revenue prior to the issuing of the two afore-mentioned Notifications in 1982.
' In the second writ petition, viz., No, 4687 of 1987, the validity of this Memorandum of 10 June, 1987 has been questioned and it has been prayed that the recovery already made under the said Memorandum be refunded.
2. The circumstances leading to the controversy under adjudication are that the petitioners are tenants of the State land under the Remount Breeding Scheme on terms and conditions laid down under section 10 (2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. It appears that in the year 1979 respondent No,1 called upon the petitioners to pay land revenue. This demand of the respondent was challenged by the petitioners by filing a Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,2780 of 1979) in this Court. The said Constitutional petition was disposed of on 9th July, 1980 in view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the Board of Revenue was willing to consider the case of the petitioners on merits and till the decision of the matter the land revenue shall not be recovered. As already mentioned above, the Board of Revenue on re- consideration with the approval of the Governor issued two Notifications dated 27-3-1982 whereby the petitioners were declared exempt from payment of land revenue. However, the Board of Revenue, vide its memorandum dated 10-6-1987, decided that the Notifications of 27th March, 1982 be not retrospectively applied and, therefore, the petitioners were liable to pay revenue for the period before the issuance of the Notifications.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following two contentions:-
(i) That the petitioners were lessees/tenants on the land and as such were not "land-owners" and thus not liable to pay land revenue; and
(ii) that the Notifications of 27th March, 1982 shall be deemed to be effective w,e,f, the date the petitioners initially questioned the validity of charge of the land revenue from them and that delay in issuing of the Notifications of exemption being not on account of the petitioners' conduct and being the act of the second party itself should not he allowed to be read so as to burden the tenants with a liability which has been found by the respondent itself to be unjustified and consequently specific exemption has been allowed in respect thereof.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been able to rebut the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioneRs,
5. It is clear from the definition of "land-owner" appearing in Section 4 (13) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, that a tenant cannot be treated as a land-owner in view of the specific exclusion contained therein. Apart altogether from the above position, the Government having itself given an exemption, it of necessity follows that the petitioners' case was found to be A justified for exemption from the payment of land revenue and the demand in this respect, if made, would be inequitable.
6. For reasons aforesaid, these petitions are allowed and the impugned demand of the respondents for payment of land revenue is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.