1. ' Petitioner was a teacher in a school run by District Board. On 20-2-1958, 13 Acres, 5 Kanals, 15 Marlas of State land in Chak No,189/JB of Tehsil Chiniot was allotted to him under Grow More Food Scheme. He entered upon its possession and commenced cultivating it. Later, the allotted land was included in Chargah, and, in lieu of it, the District Collector allotted 72 Kanals, 8 Marlas of land in the same Chak under Grow More Food Scheme to the petitioner, on 29-6-1964. Possession of the freshly allotted land was given to him and he entered upon its personal cultivation. On 29-11-1967, the Collector served a notice upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed resumption of the allotment of land from him. On 20-12-1967, petitioner showed cause but it did not convince the Collector who ordered for the resumption of the allotment on ground of initial ineligibility of the petitioner and fifty per cent. Non-cultivation of it. Petitioner preferred an appeal from resumption order to Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, who without touching the material issues requiring decision dismissed the appeal on 13-11-1968. For similar reasons, a revision filed before Board of Revenue also failed on 18-11-1969. Thereupon, petitioner took recourse to the Civil Court and instituted a civil suit for annulment of orders regarding resumption of allotment of land and consequent conferment of proprietary rights.
2. ' Province of Punjab submitted written statement and contested the suit. Suit was tried on as many as five issues, including the relief clause. Upon taking evidence from the parties and its scrutiny, the trail Court found that the plaintiff being a school teacher was ineligible to hold allotment of the State land and therefore, its cancellation was not invalid. This finding was recorded under issue No,1. Under issue No,2, the trial Court found that jurisdiction in the Civil Court was not barred.
3. However, finding on issue No,1 obviated a decision on issues No,3 and 4. In consequence, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed, on 8-3-1978. In appeal filed by the petitioner, decision by the trial Court was reversed on 14-5-1979, and the suit decreed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the present civil revision at the instance of Province of Punjab. It was admitted to hearing on 20-11-1979.
4. ' Only material point requiring determination in the civil revision was about the initial eligibility of the petitioner to the allotment of State land, under Grow More Food Scheme. It was common ground that both, at the time of first and second allotment of the State land, petitioner was a teacher of a school run and managed by a local authority. He was not a Government servant but was an employee of local body i,e, the District Board. Educational institutions run by local bodies were nationalized in the year 1965. Upon this juncture, the petitioner entered the fold of Governer service. Admittedly, it was a subsequent event and could not retrospectively forfeit the initial and basic eligibility of the petitioner to get the allotment and hold on to it. Initial eligibility of the petitioner was required to be judged upon the criteria laid down at the time of the allotment of the land under Grow More Food Scheme. Supervening disability for continuance of allotment of State land by Government servants could not be stretched in retrospective for denuding the petitioner of his valuable rights to the allotment of land which was valid at the time, it was made. Scheme did not compulsorily require disclosure of subsequent induction in Government service by the petitioner and it did not create any disability for him to hold and continue his allotment of land.
5. Further, there was neither any clear finding on fifty per cent. Non-cultivation of the allotted land in the order of the trial Court or in the respective orders made by Colonization authorities. Upon review of record, lower appellate Court had found this point against the petitioner. This being a finding of fact was not susceptible to review in revision for a substitutive finding by this Court.
6. Learned Government Advocate failed to point out any legal bar in the Scheme relating to initial ineligibility of the respondent for the allotment of State land or that on conversion of his tenure of service upon nationalization of local bodies' educational institutions in the year 1965, he was bound to lose its benefit., Upon this view, the petitioner could not be found ineligible for allotment of State land under Grow More Food Scheme, nor, was he proved to have failed to cultivate it fifty per cent.
7. Therefore, on both the scores, resumption of allotment was defective and untenable. As for bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court laid in section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
8. Act V of 1912, it was sufficient to observe that the Civil Court was empowered to review the acts of Revenue authorities found beyond the periphery of law. In my opinion, section 36 did not sanctify an illegal or bad order and protected only valid acts. Therefore, Civil Courts could competently review their legitimacy for pronouncing upon their correctness. Karim Dad v. Arif All and another, PLD 1978 Lahore 679 was in point. Lastly, the suit was not barred by limitation. Article 14 of the Limitation Act.Was applicable only to setting aside of orders passed under and within the scope of the Act and in the event of transgression of legal limits culminating in their voidness, Article 120 providing a period of six years would attract itself. Thus viewed, civil suit filed on 7-4-1971 was within limitation. There was yet another matter to be dealt with. Plaintiff claimed setting aside of the orders relating to resumption of allotment and asserted for conferment of proprietary rights.
9. Revenue authorities had merely pronounced upon resumption of allotment and had no occasion so far to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the grant of proprietary rights in respect of the allotted land. Therefore, upon setting aside of the resumption orders, the matter relating to grant of proprietary rights required consideration by them, in the light of prevailing law.
10. ' In result, the above civil revision is partially allowed; impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are modified and the suit instituted by the petitioner is decreed to the extent that cancellation/resumption of allotment of the land existing in his favour was null and void, leaving it open to the competent Authorities to decide afresh regarding conferment of proprietary rights in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Records be returned.