This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,6181 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,2316 of 199,4 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The petitioners in these cases were allotted land under the Bara Reclamation Scheme which was, however, -resumed on-the ground that the petitioners had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the said Scheme. However, the dispute remained pending before the various forums and was ultimately came to the Board of Revenue which by its order dated 17-1-1984 held that as the petitioners had not been cultivating the land and had sub-let it to respondents Nos,4 to 8. the petitioners have lost their right under the Scheme. The Member Board of Revenue, however, remanded the case so far as the entitlement of respondents for the grant of proprietary rights was concerned.
3. These petitions have been filed after about 11 years of the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case has remained pending before, various forums and as such it cannot be said that the petitioners have been delayed.
4. This contention of the learned counsel has no force. As already observed, so far as the petitioners are concerned, their fate was sealed vide order, dated 17-1-1984 of the member Board of Revenue, who in categorical terms had observed that as the petitioners did not self-cultivate the land from the beginning of the lease as per entries in the Kharsa Girdawari, the lease was rightly resumed 'by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner had passed an improper order restoring the lease. The only question which was left open was as to whether respondents Nos,4 to 8 who were in cultivating possession were entitled to the grant of proprietary rights.
In view of what been said above, both these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.