' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order, dated 19-10-1999 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan in Chamber whereby writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed.
2. The facts in brief are that the State land measuring 150 acres and 6 Marlas had been allotted to Nazir Ahmed respondent No.11 under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme. On 14-1-1973 the respondent Nazir Ahmed entered into an agreement for the sale of this land with the respondents Nos.1 to 8.
The respondents Nos.1 to 8 instituted a suit against Nazir Ahmed respondent for the specific performance of the said agreement. The suit was not contested, and thus, on 13-12-1980 a consent decree was passed in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 8. Meanwhile, the proprietary rights were conferred upon Nazir Ahmed respondent vide a sale-deed registered on 18-4-1981 and on the same day another Mutation No.20 was entered and attested on the basis of the consent decree in favour of the respondents Nos, 1 to 8.
3. One Jamshed Ali, not an aggrieved person, submitted an application to the Collector, Multan for review of Mutation No.20 on the ground that before the sale of land by Nazir Ahmed respondent in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 8, the requisite sanction under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 (hereinafter called the Act) had not been obtained, and therefore, the mutation was void. The said application was allowed and the mutation was cancelled. The said order was assailed in appeal, which was also dismissed on 14-10-1985. A revision was taken against the order, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, who remanded the case to the Revenue Officer. Ultimately, Mutation No.20 was upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide order, dated 15-10-1987. Meanwhile the respondent Nazir Ahmed sold this land to the petitioners vide a registered sale-deed and on the basis thereof another Mutation No.81 was sanctioned on 31-3-1987. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order, which was accepted vide order, dated 2-10-1990 by the Member, Board of Revenue, who remitted the case to the Additional Commissioner. In post remand proceeding, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide order, dated 14-2-1991 ordered that the land be distributed equally between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.1 to 8. This order was assailed by the respondents through a revision petition and the matter was also taken to the High Court in writ petition jurisdiction on the question of issuance of status quo. Meanwhile, another development took place. The respondents filed an application for the grant of ex post facto sanction under section 19 of the Act. The Member, Board of Revenue granted the sanction vide order, dated 3-4-1991. However, the Member (Colonies) again issued another order, dated 30-4-1991 suspending the sanction. The respondent No.5 then applied for the cancellation of the sanction and ultimately the Member (Colonies) in the Board of Revenue withdrew the sanction vide order, dated 30-1-1994. The said order was challenged by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court and writ petition was allowed vide orders impugned.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the prima facie it is a fit case for granting leave to appeal to consider the following questions:--
(i) Whether the Member (Colonies) in the Board of Revenue was competent to grant ex post facto sanction for the alienation of the land under section 19 of the Act?
(ii) Could the order, dated 30-1-1994 cancelling the sanction be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction?
(iii) What is the effect of Condition No.27 governing the alienation of land in the conveyance deed issued in favour of Nazir Ahmed respondent, the original allottee and whether the sanction under section 19 of the Act was necessary to alienate the land?
(iv) Could the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide his order, dated 14-9-1991 distributed the suit land equally between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.1 to 8?
(v) What is the effect of the consent decree, dated 13-12-1980, which had been obtained when no sanction under section 19 of the Act held the field, particularly so when the Provincial Government was not a party in the suit?
(vi) Could the Member Board of Revenue grant ex post facto sanction under section 19 of the Act?
' Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the above questions.
' The respondents shall not alienate the property in disposal of the appeal.