' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court in I.C.A. No.223 of 1982 dated 5-12-1989.
1. Relevant facts are that appellants' father Shahadat All was granted a lease, under Temporary Cultivation Scheme, of land measuring 7 Acres, 7 Kanals, 17 Marlas situate in Chak No.143/R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad, by the Collector, Faisalabad, for a period of five years w.e.f, Kharif 1973. By a notification issued on 3rd of September, 1979, a Scheme for grant of proprietary rights to the lessees under the temporary cultivation Scheme was promulgated by the Government under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The lessee filed an application on 27th December, 1979 before the Collector, Faisalabad that he be permitted to purchase the proprietary rights of the land. The Collector instead of deciding this application adjourned it sine die on 15-11-198I on the ground that the matter regarding inclusion of this land in the Schedule of Gujranwala Oustees Scheme was pending before the Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Subsequently, the Board of Revenue vide its memorandum dated 18-5-1981 accorded permission to include the disputed land in the Schedule. The lessee having had no relief from the Revenue Authorities and the High Court, his heirs, the lessee having died in the meanwhile, petitioned this Court for leave to appeal. At the hearing it was observed that 'Coming to the judgment of the learned Single Judge it proceeded on the basis that the land in possession of the petitioner had been included in the Gujranwala Permanent Scheme, therefore, in accordance with the instructions and Notification the proprietary rights claimed by the petitioners' side on that land could not have been granted to them: After some arguments it has been noticed that but for introduction of said permanent scheme the petitioners would have been granted the land in question and further that in such like cases it is the consistent practice of the Government to offer alternative State land to the affected persons. It is further argued that this cannot be treated as mere bounty by the State.
The relevant Notifications do create rights in favour of the allottees particularly when they become eligible to a further right to obtain proprietary rights. In this case the aforementioned exercise has not been done. Leave to appeal is granted." This is vide order dated 12th June, 1990.
2. Today at the time of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in pursuance of the observations of this Court quoted above, the appellants filed an application before the Member, Board of Revenue for grant of alternate land. But they have told that there is ban on such allotments.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities states that the appellants did not pursue their application. They should approach the authority where the application is pending for grant of alternate land and their application shall be given due consideration.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we direct that the appellants may pursue their application for alternate land before the relevant authority. Ban on allotment shall not be applicable to the case of the appellants as the right had accrued under the relevant instructions much before the ban. The application of the appellants shall be expeditiously dealt with as they had long suffered already. The appeal is thus disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs in the circumstances.