' The petitioner who was teacher in Primary School used to cultivate land in Chak No, 151/J.B, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang. He was owner of less than four acres of land and was declared eligible for grant of lease under 15 years lease scheme, framed by the Government of Punjab vide Notification No,1622/71-1205-CLI, dated 24-4-1971 and was allotted land measuring 2 Acres, 5 Kanals and 10 Marlas by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Chiniot on 31-7-1971. After the issuance of statement of conditions for the grant of proprietary rights for the land, vide Notification No,3215-79/ 3973-C II dated 3-9-1979, the petitioner applied for the same as he fulfilled all the conditions prescribed by the said notification. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the Collector vide his order dated 23-81982 on the ground that the land in possession of the petitioner has been reserved for Jammu and Kashmir refugees. This order was assailed in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20-4-1983 dismissed the same. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab also met with the same fite and was dismissed on 24-7-1983. Thereafter the petitioner instituted a declaratory suit which was dismissed by the learned Duty Judge Jhang vide order dated 14-1-1984.
The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed vides order dated 22-2-1984. Hence this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that authority for grant of proprietary rights vested in District Collector and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner, filed by in this behalf. He has drawn my attention to the admitting note wherein it is mentioned as under:- "The file produced by Muhammad Yousaf, Assistant Head Clerk clearly shows that A.C./Collector had passed an order in terms that the jurisdiction to decide the question of grant of proprietary rights vested in the Collector of the District, and therefore, the file should be forwarded to him. This order appears to have been passed on 16/17th May, 1981. Surprisingly, the same officer on 23-8-1982 himself assumed the jurisdiction of the District Collector and ordered the application of the petitioner to be consigned to the record. The learned counsel contends that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner when the competent Authority had allotted him the land under 15 years lease scheme despots full knowledge of the fact thus other condition of the scheme would deemed to have been waived."
' Learned Counsel further contended that the land in question being in possession of the petitioner under 15 years lease scheme could not be included in the Schedule of Jammu and Kashmir refugees scheme.
3. I have learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Despite repeated calls no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. It is admitted on record that the petitioner was in Government Service when the land was allotted to him. There is no bar for allotment of land to the Government Servants for cultivation purposes. The learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue have referred to the general instructions and the policy of the Government in this behalf without referring any specific instructions. Rule 16 of Government Service Conduct Rules, 1964 provides that a non-Gazetted Government Servant may undertake a small enterprises without prior sanction of the competent Authority to supplement his income. At the time of deciding the appeal and revision of the petitioner, neither the learned Additional Commissioner nor the learned Member, Board of Revenue recorded any finding about the jurisdiction of the authority as to whether it was Collector of the District or the Assistant Commissioner who had jurisdiction to grant proprietary rights and whether the application of the petitioner for this purpose was decided by the authority who was competent to take cognizance of the matter.
4. In the light of what has been discussed above, the order dated 24-7-1983 passed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal consequence and the same is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the instructions contained in Memorandum No,20-71-11/407- CS, dated 13-2-1971 and Notification No, 3215-79/3973-C II, dated 3-9-1979 issued by Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department and also Government Service Conduct Rules, 1964.
5. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.