1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition 6 from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-9-1975 accepting Writ Petition No. 1197 of 1975 moved by the respondents herein & the circumstances set out below.
2. The dispute relates to State land measuring 194 acres 5 kanals and 12 marlas and described as Tukra No. 53-3, actuate in Tehsil Sumandri. The land was originally given on 20 years lease to Mian Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme framed under section 10 of the Colonization of Govern--ment Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 After complying with certain conditions of the lease within certain prescribed period Mian Ghulam Muhammad applied to tire Collector for the transfer of the proprietary rights to him. His request was allowed on the payment of price assessed at Rs. 58,406.25 either in lump sum or in 10 half yearly equal instalments. After the payment of first instalment Mian Ghulam Muhammad cued and the land was mutated in the name of the respondents his heirs on 9-9-1974.
3. It appears that during his life time, Mian Ghulam Muhammad had also applied to the Commissioner on 18-1-1972 for permission for the transfer of his right and interest in the land to the petitioners herein. It seems that the petitioners' father Rana Ghulam Sabir had advanced from time to time considerable sums of money to enable Mian Ghulam Muhammad to develop the land who in turn had agreed to transfer the same after acquisition of proprietary rights. The Commissioner however, rejected Ghulam Muhammad's request on 25-5-1972. The Commissioner having refused permission to Ghulam Muhammad to transfer the land to the petitioners herein, the latter moved the Provincial Chief Minister for redress apparently on equitable grounds the large sum advanced to Ghulam Muham--mad by their father not being denied. After enquiry by the Collector, the Provincial Government in the Colony Department communicated the following order to the Collector :- "As the allottee violated the conditions of the lease agreement and transferred the rights in the lot through a private agreement without obtaining permission of the Government, the Government of Punjab has decided that the lot in question should be resumed forthwith from tire present heirs of the original allottee.
4. As Rana Ghulam Sabir deceased, and his sons M/s. Rana Inam Rubbani and Rana Ikram Rubbani the transferees, have purchased, this land after paying huge amount from the original allottee in the life time and are in continuous possession of it since that time, the Government is further to accord sanction to the transfer of State land measuring 194 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas situate in Tukra No. 53-3. Tehsil Samundri. District Lyallpur in favour of M/s. Rana Inam Rubbani and Ikram Rabbani."
5. Aggrieved by the above order the respondents moved a writ petition which was accepted on the following two grounds, namely :-
(i) That the Commissioner who was the designated authority under section 19 of the Act had by refusing permission for the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners despite the agreement in writing between the parties must be deemed to have condoned the breach of condition in the original grant ; and
(ii) that in any event the resumption of the land by the Provincial Government was without any notice whatever to the respondents herein which offended against the principle of natural justice.
6. Mr. A. R. Sheikh learned counsel for the petitioners frankly coated that he could not possibly assail the second ground which weighed wit the High Court because of the dicta of this Court in the cases of Farid sons and Zakir Hussain and in a number of other. Similar cases. Lear counsel however, complained that the High Court have virtually short-circuited the revisional jurisdiction of the board of Revenue by the finding that the Commissioner---s order dated 25-5-1972 was tantamount to condonation of breach of condition of the lease by the deceased lessee. This according to learned counsel has the effect of preventing the Board of Revenue to consider in exercise of its general revisional jurisdiction to whether Ghulam Muhammad was in breach of the condition against 4 transfer of lease warranting its resumption.
7. We have read the judgment of the High Court and we do not consider that it will have any such effect. Indeed, the case was never place before the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction.
8. The earlier decision in favour of the petitioners was taken by the Provincial Govern--ment in exercise of its executive fiat and not pursuant to the revisional order of the Board of Revenue.
9. However, that may be, we consider that the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue is not and cannot be affected by an observation in the impugned judgment for the Board of Revenue had no occasion to decide the case in revisional jurisdiction.
10. With the above observation we dismiss the petition.