' Two lots of land bearing No, 61 and 63, situated in village Ghumana District Jhang, were put to auction on 24-12-1962 under the 'Special Auction Scheme" framed under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912, the total area of these lots, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar, was 28 acres 5 kanals and 9 marals. The highest bid for lot No, 61 was Rs, 21,207 and for lot No, 63 was Rs, 24,673 (total Rs, 45,880). These bids were made by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. As per terms of the auction, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 1/4th of the bid money, namely, Rs, 11,471 was paid immediately though possession was taken by the petitioners later on somewhere in January 1963. It has been further p1eaded before me at the Bar that the earlier allottees of this land under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' made no resistance and rather volunteered that their allotments/leases be cancelled and the possession be delivered to the ptitioners. The case of the petitioners is that they made huge investments in the land, installed a tube-well and incurred certain other expenses. However, according to the petitioners, all of a sudden there was issued a letter by the Board of Revenue on 7- 9-1963 addressed to the Commissioner (information of which was later given to the petitioners) stating that the sale through auction of the aforesaid lots was cancelled on the grounds that (a) the area sold was situated within five miles of Jhang and could not have, on the facts and circumstances of the case, been disposed of by auction and (b) that the aforesaid area was already allotted under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' to certain lessees whose lease was to expire in 1965 and, as such, the auction of the already leased area was not warranted according to the law on the subject. The petitioners on 23-8-1963 allegedly made a representation which was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner Jhang and the Commissioner Sargodha but the Board of Revenue did not accept those recommendations and declined to confirm the auction in favour of the petitioners. The order of the Board of Revenue is contained in their letter, dated 12- 6.1964 (copy filed as Annexure '.E'). The petitioners allegedly made a second representation (a copy of representation, dated 13-7-1964 exists in the file of the Board of Revenue) and later on also served a formal notice praying particularly that the lease of the previous allottees under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' having expired on the 14th March, 1965, the sale in their favour may now be confirmed. As they did not receive any reply to the aforesaid notice, therefore, they have come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court. The case was beard at lenght. A departmental representative also appeard alongwith the file and record of the case which was perused in the presence and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The first point argued by the learned counsel was that the ground given by the learned Member, Board of Revenue that the sale was not being confirmed because the area in dispute was situated within five miles of municipal limits of Jhang and as such could not have on the facts and circumstances of the case, been auctioned is not maintainable. The contention seems to have merit. A perusal of the Sale Scheme shows that rather the areas which were within five miles of the municipal limits of a town were to be disposed of by public auctions. The position, it will thus appear, was contrary to just what the learned Member Board of Revenue assumed in this case. The orders of the learned Member Board of Revenue, which are based on this wrong assumption of law are thus clearly without lawful authority and cannot be upheld.
3. The next point argued was that a precedent case was cited by the petitioners, namely, that of one Nabi Bux son of Masta who had similarly purchased in auction Lot No, 63 in Chak No, 506 which also similarly situated within five miles from the border limits of the municipal committee. In this case as well there were certain earlier allottees under "Grow More Food Scheme". Those allottees gave affidavits that they did not wish to retain their allotment under the "Grow More Food Scheme" and would have no objection if the land was allowed to remain with Nabi Bakhsh the auction purchaser. That case was recommended by the learned Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner with the result that the learned member Board of Revenue allowed to let the land remain with the auction purchaser (Nabi Bakhsh). In the instant case, it is argued the facts were similar. Here too the persons who were shown in the revenue records as lessees. Occupants gave affidavits in favour of the petitioners but still the learned Member, Board of Revenue failed to give legal effect to them iii the same manner as had been done by him in the case of Nabi Bakhsh hereinbefore mentioned. Learned counsel submits that one more significant feature of the present case was that though with regard to the land purchased by Nabi Bakhsh certain allottees under the "Grow More Food Scheme" did exist, but so far as the present land was concerned, the entries in the revenue records, according to him, were merely paper entries inasmuch as, on factual plan no practical allottees existed on the spot. Be that as it may, those persons whose names were shown in the revenue records as allottees also gave affidavits in favour of the petitioners just as the allottees of the land of Nabi Bakhsh gave affidavits in favour of Nabi Bakhsh. The case thus was at par which that of Nabi Bakhsh but the orders of the learned Member Board of Revenue do not indicate as to how he discriminated between the two. The contention raised seems to have merit.
In this respect, it appears the learned Member Board of Revenue did not appreciate the factual position and ignored the other stronger distinctive features of this case from that of Nabi Bakhsh in so far as here it was being alleged that no practical allottees existed. No doubt the learned Member Board of Revenue, while refusing to confirm the sale, had mentioned that the lease of the land in dispute in favour of the Grow More Food Allottees was to expire in 1965 but that seems to be just a mechanical observation without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the pleas of the petitioners, the factual positionon the spot and reports and recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner in the light of the precedent of Nabi Itakbah hereinbefore mentioned. These errors of omission and commission in my opinion are sufficient to render the impugned orders as to be without lawful authority.
4. The last point argued was that the learned Member Board of Revenue passed orders against the petitioners without hearing them and without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.
This is against the principles of natural justice and in all fairness if there were any circumstances, for which the petitioners were to be condemned, it was just and fair that the learned Member Board of Revenue should have heard them and given them an opportunity to present their point of view and prove their contentions in accordance with law. This fact by itself is sufficient to render the impugned orders as to be without lawful authority. I hold accordingly.
5. The result of all the discussion hereinbefore made is that the impugned orders of the learned Member, Board of Revenue shall have to be declared as to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners which, as earlier indicated, I hereby do. The writ petition is accepted; the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners and in the light of the observations hereinbefore made. There shall be no order as to cost.