Some State land was allotted to the petitioners under Grow More Food Scheme. They were put into possession. They claimed to have made huge investment, made the same culturable and tubewells installed for that purpose. It was in the year, 1962 that the Government decided to grant proprietary rights to such allottees, the petitioners made their applications which, according' to them, were scrutinized, processed and after due consideration the Collector of the District granted them the proprietary rights in the year, 1966. One Asghar A.I Bhatti felt aggrieved of the same, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 8-10-1966. He then challenged that order before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision petition which was rejected on 5-5-1967.
It appears that the same person had made some--- application to the Governor of West Pakistan whereupon a report was sent for from the Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad, the matter was then considered by the Board of Revenue and on considering the comments of the District Collector, declined to proceed the matter and "filed" the same on 20-1-1967. Long thereafter, the Board of Revenue appear to have re-opened the matter and directed to issue notice to the parties.
Learning about the same, the petitioners made an application before the Board of Revenue objecting to the proceedings that the same were illegal and without jurisdiction, however, their application was rejected on 1-2-1990. The petitioners then challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue in the matter through this petition. '
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter had been examined and decided on judicial side upto the Board of Revenue, it was not open to the Board of Revenue to reopen the same purporting to act under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government (Land)
Act, 1912 nor can exercise suo motu power under the law. According to him, the matter had become final on all aspects and there was no basis whatsoever to reopen the matter as the findings recorded in the earlier round and the report of Chairman, Municipal Committee was that the land was out of Municipal Committee limits. Relies on Ghous Muhammad v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1986 M LD 997, Mst. Abeda Begum v. Government of Pakistan and others 1985 CLC 2859 and Shameer and others v. Member Colonies Board arid others 1994 CLC 904 to contend that assumption of jurisdiction in the matter by the Board was. Wholly unwarranted.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has entered appearance and has been heard in the matter.
4. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners were granted proprietary rights. They had paid the price and registered conveyance deed was executed in their favour on 2-8-1967, after the matter had concluded in proceedings up to the Board of Revenue in the hierarchy. In his order the learned Member, Colonies had specifically noted that:-- "The learned Collector has mentioned in his order that the land in dispute is situated beyond the prescribed limits. He has based his finding on the certificate of the Vice-Chairman, Municipal Committee, Nankana Sahib and the Tehsildar. The learned counsel has produced nothing to support his version that the area is situated within five miles of the Municipal limits."
This was a finding recorded by the learned Member on due consideration of the matter and had attained finality as the said order was not challenged further, Even in the report, submitted by the Collector, and the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, the same position had been affirmed.
There, thus, appear to be no valid basis for re-opening of the matter by the Board of Revenue.
5. The sanctity of the conveyance in favour of a party was noted by their Lordships in Anjuman-e- Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and others PLD 1966 SC 639 and Majlis-e--Intizamia, Jamia Masjid, Ghulam Muhammad Abad Colony, Lyallpur v. The Secretary to Government of . West Pakistan, . Communication and Works Department, Lahore PLD 1975 SC 355. In Ghous Muhammad's case (supra) as well initiation of an inquiry after the registered conveyance had been executed was declared as without lawful authority. In Shameer's case (supra) also resumption of land which order was passed on erroneous assumption that the land was situated within the Municipal limits was declared illegal. In Mst. Abeda Begum's case (supra) it was observed that once the Federal Government had dismissed the civil revision petition, the matter could not be reopened thereafter by exercising sue motu revisional jurisdiction available to it under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, IA 1975. In this view of the matter, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue in the matter was not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. A transaction which had matured and come into existence as a result of judicial orders passed in the hierarchy was not open to scrutiny over again by the Board of Revenue on the same allegations already dealt with properly. assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No.1 as illegal and without lawful authority. No order as to costs