' This order will dispose of the above-cited eleven revision petitions preferred against the order dated 9-3-1978, of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, whereby the order dated 5-7- 1976, of the C.A./Collector, Faisalabad, resuming allotments of the respondents under Grow More Food Scheme and allotting the land so resumed to the petitioners -under the defunct 15 years Lease Scheme, was reversed.
2. Briefly, some State land was allotted to the respondents under Grow More Food Scheme in Chak No, 405/JB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, District Faisalabad. Subsequently, this land was resumed by the Collector vide his order dated 16-7-1963, on the ground that the respondents were not eligible to continue in possession after expiry of a specified period. The respondents, after having unsuccessfully agitated the matter in various Courts, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, who held, by its order dated 9-6.1975, that the earlier condition for the acquisition of proprietary rights relating to the date of possession having been waived vide Government Letter No, 1488-71/1217-CL III, dated 26-4-1971, the respondents would be equally qualified for the purchase of proprietary rights in the land subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the grant. In the meantime, however, the present petitioners moved a miscellaneous application before the then Revenue Minister for allotment of the land in dispute. Accordingly, on the directive of the Revenue Minister, the Deputy Secretary to Government of Punjab, Colonies Department, wrote to the Collector, Faisalabad, to resume the land from the respondents and allot the same to the petitioners under the 15 Years Lease Scheme. The Collector, thereupon, ignoring the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court and the policy instructions dated 26-4-1971, passed the impugned order dated 5-7-1976, cancelling the allotments of the respondents under the Grow More Food Scheme and allotting the land so resumed to the petitioners under the defunct 15 Years Lease Scheme. Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed twelve- separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, who accepted all the appeals and restored the land to the respondents vide his order dated 9-3-1978.
3. The main argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the orders of allotment in favour of the petitioners were passed by the Provincial Government in exercise of its power under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, therefore it was not competent to the Additional Commissioner to have reversed these orders in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on an old ruling reported as Sewa Singh v. Secretary of State for India (I), wherein it was held that under section 10 the Provincial Government has power to allot Government lands to any person on any conditions it may think fit and under section 36 of the said Act, civil Courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the manner in which the Provincial Government exercises such powers. Admittedly, the Provincial Government had powers to grant State land to any person under the old subsection (1) of section 10 which used to read as follows :- "The Provincial Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit."
' This subsection was, however, replaced by the West Pakistan Ordinance XXXI of 1961 with a new subsection (1) which reads as under :- "The Board of Revenue subjection to the general approval of the Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit."
' Therefore, after the amendment of subsection (1) of section 10, the power to grant lands is a colony has come to vest in the Board of Revenue and the Government has been left only with the power to approve general instructions to be followed by the Board of Revenue in making such grants. The Government may also impose certain limitations on the exercise of this power by the Board of Revenue. But it cannot assume the power to grant lands under the amended subsection (1). On this view of the matter, the argument that the Government has unfettered powers under section 10(1) to grant colony lands to any person or any conditions it may like does not hold good any longer.
4. In the present case what actually happened was that orders were issued at the behest of the then Revenue Minister and signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Colonies Department, directing the Collector, Faisalabad, to resume the land from the respondents and allot the same to the petitioners under 15 Years Lease Scheme. Obviously, these orders could not be deemed to be the orders of the Board of Revenue passed under subsection (l) of section 10.
Nonetheless, the Collector, Faisalabad, in obedience to the said orders of the Minister, proceeded to resume the land from the respondents and allot the same to the petitioners under 15 Years Lease Scheme, vide his order dated 5-7-1976, purported to have been passed under section 10(3). This was not permissible under the law because the 15-Years Lease Scheme had ceased to operate since 31-5-1971, and had never been revived thereafter. No doubt that the Government has the power under section 10(2) to issue a new scheme or revive a defunct scheme for the benefit of tenants generally, but it cannot competently do so if the object of the scheme so issued or revived is merely to accommodate any particular individuals and not to benefit the tenants or any class of tenants generally. In the present case, however, the Government had not issued any specific orders under section 10(2) for the revival of the defunct 15-Year Lease Scheme and therefore it was not
(1) 32 P L R 206=AIR 1931 Lah. 270 competent for the Collector to have made any allotments thereunder by virtue of his power under section 10(3).
5. Thus the legal position that emerges from the above is that under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, it is not the Government but the Board of Revenu that has the power to grant colony lands to any person on such condition as it thinks fit, subject of course, to such policy instructions as may approved generally by the Government. It was not therefore lawful for the Revenue Minister to have, in his performance of the functions of Government, caused a directive to be issued to the Collector for grant of the land in dispute, after its resumption from the respondents, to the petitioners under 15-Year Lease Scheme, which had ceased to operate since 13-5-1971, and could not be revived by the Government under section 10(2) for the benefit of a few individuals only. Nor it was competent for the Collector to have, in blind obedience to this directive which had not been regularly issued by the Board of Revenue in terms of section 10(1), made allotments in favour of the petitioners under the defunct 15-Year Lease Scheme and thus created an estate of a kind unknown to the law. Thus the order of the Collector making allotments to the petitioners was without lawful authority and passed, per incurriam, in ignorance of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9-6-1975, as well as of the policy instructions laid down in Board of Revenue's letter dated 26-4-1971 and was, therefore, void and of no legal consequence. In these circumstances the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly interfered in the matter in exercise of his . Appellate jurisdiction and set the wrong right.
6. No other point worthy of consideration has been urged. Consequently all the revision petitions are dismissed in limine.