1. The petitioner prays that he was allotted 13 killas of State Land in April, 1973, under an Alternative Allotment Scheme introduced by the Government in 1971. Subsequently, on fulfilling the requisite conditions proprietary rights were conferred upon him and a Conveyance Deed was also executed in his favour. The deed is dated 8th of January, 1975. The claim of the respondent No. 1 is that his father was allotted 12 killas of State Land in the year 1960 which allotment never having been cancelled is still valid. However, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 arose when it was found that the land allotted and transferred to the petitioner included four killas, namely Killas Nos. 18, 19, 22 and 23 of Square No. 45, which had already been allotted to the father of respondent No. 1 according to the latter's claim. This discovery led to litigation. When the matter ultimately came before the Board of Revenue, the learned Member (Colonies) of the Board of Revenue, held that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was void ab initio inasmuch as it had been made by Additional Commissioner and not by the Collector concerned. Accordingly the learned Member cancelled the petitioner's allotment. As to the allotment in favour of the father of respondent No. 1, the case was remanded to the Collector concerned for a fresh decision after verification of facts. This order was passed on the 3rd of February, 1977. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge its validity.
2. It is to be noted that the dispute was with regard to only 4 of the 13 killas of land allotted to the petitioner and later transferred to him by means of a Conveyance Deed. The Board of Revenue had, therefore, no authority to nullify the transfers duly made by the Collector in respect of the remaining 9 killas. Even with regard to the four killas in dispute, there was no justification in setting at naught the Conveyance Deed executed by the Collector simply on the technical ground that the original allotment had been trade by an Additional Commissioner and not by a Collector. However, the matter would be different if the four disputed killas had earlier been transferred to some other party in which case the second transfer would be nullity in this eye of law. Secondly it is Set to be determined whether the allotment made in favour of the father of respondent No. 1 is valid and' whether the said respondent is entitled to retain the disputed land. Without determining these facts the cancellation of the disputed land from the name of the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 1 was absolutely unwarranted. Since no proprietary rights have so far been conferred upon the respondent No. 1 in respect of the disputed area, he can be accommodated elsewhere if he is found entitled to such allotment. In my opinion the Board of Revenue of the Government has no authority to interfere with the] proprietary rights of the petitioner in respect of the land transferred to him by means of the Conveyance Deed referred to above. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue failed to examine the effect of the Conveyance Deed in his judgment.
3. For the reasons given above I allow this writ petition and declare the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.