Through this consolidated judgment I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos,6220 of 1999, 6333 of 1999, 6334 of 1999, 6335 of 1999, 6336 of 1999, 6745 of 1999, 6798 of 1999;6961 of 1999, 6962 of 1999, 6963 of 1999, 8304 of 1999, 8855 of 1999, 11496 of 1999, 13046 of 1999, 13075 of 1999, 13076 of 1999, 13077 of 1999, 13383 of 1999, 13389 of 1999. 13403 of 1999, 13531 of 1999, 13532 of 1999, 13533 of 1999, 13821 of 1999, 14581 of 1999, 15309 of 1999, 15566 of 1999, 15740 of 1999, 15679 of 1999, 15738 of 1999, 15739 of 1999, 15816 of 1999, 15897 of 1999, 15898 of 1999, 15953 of-1999, 15718 of 1999, 16829 of 1999, 16830 of 1999, 17604 of 1999, 17605 of 1999, 17606 of 1999, 19055, of 1999 19056 of 1999 and 5563 of 2000 (44 in all) as the questions of law and facts involved in all the above writ petitions are the same.
2. Writ Petitions Nos,6333 of 1999, 6334 of 1999, 6335 of 1999, 6336 of 1999, 6745 of 1999, 6798 of 1999.
6961 of 1999,6962 of 1999, 6963 of 1999, 8304 of 1999 and 5563 of 2000 have not been admitted to regular hearing. They have been, heard alongwith Writ Petition No, 6220 of 1999 and other writ petitions which stand admitted to regular hearing. therefore, these writ petitions which stand admitted to regular hearing, therefore, these writ petitions are also being disposed as a notice case.
3. Brief facts as embodied in the petition are that the petitioners in abovesaid writ petition are purchasers from original allottees, who have also been impleaded as respondents. The allotment as alleged in the petition was made in the name of original allottees under Grow More Food Scheme and they were put in possession. The proprietary rights were granted to them and conveyance deed was issued in their favour after deposit of Zar-i-Saman in favour of the Government and mutation of ownership was also sanctioned in favour of original allottees. The learned M.B.R. vide impugned order directed Deputy Commissioner/Collector for forfeiture of the land under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and Robkars have also been issued for resumption of the land from the name of the original allottees. Registered sale- deed (conveyance deed) issued in favour of the original allottees were also cancelled.
4. It is contended that the petitioners being bona fide purchaser have been condemned unheard as no notice was ever served upon the petitioners, therefore, suo motu proceeding taken by the learned M.B.R. and the impugned orders are violative of natural justice and the maxim contained in audi alter partem. It is further contended that the petitioners are prepared to purchase the land in question at market price prevalent on the date of sanctioning of original mutation plus 10% surcharge on account of sale by private treaty as per policy of the respondent/Board of Revenue, Punjab contained in Letter No,2020-95-CL-III, Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 12-9-1995 on the ground that they have made the barren land cultivatable and made improvements on it. The department has already issued policy setter for regularization of possession of purchasers. who have purchased the land through private treaty. therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the regularization of possession on the same terms and conditions as per the policy of Board of Revenue.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners have also drawn my attention to the impugned orders which according to them are stereo type order from where it appears that the learned M.B.R. did not consider the case on its own merit and pass the impugned order without application of conscience mind. They have also drawn my attention to the notices issues for resumption of the land, which according to the learned counsel are nullity being outcome of a void order. According to the petitioner every case has its own merit and should have been decided after affording opportunity to the parties concerned, whose names have been incorporated in the Revenue Record. It is further argued that the officials against whom the charge of committing malpractice in the allotment to the original allottees was levelled, have been exonerated of the charge. Meaning thereby, the allotment made in favour of the original allottees had been regularized.
6. Report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents have been perused. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Naseem Sabir, Additional Advocate-General.
7. The learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the impugned order. but when faced with the situation that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order, had no answer and admitted that no such notice was issued to the petitioners.
8. From the above resume, it is clear that when the petitioners acquired the title in the disputed land through purchase from the original allottees, they were bona fide allottees and lawful owners of the disputed land. Their ownership was manifested firstly in the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the original allottees by the Government and secondly their names were incorporated in the Revenue Record. In these circumstances, the title of the original allottees was complete and they were competent to convey it to the petitioners when they possessed such title. Subsequent determination by Board of Revenue that the original allottees had acquired the land by mean of fraud could not effect the title of the petitioners acquired at the time when such title was vested the original allottees. Power vested in the respondents under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 was only available to them for the period- during which the transferee from the Government retained title of the suit-land and said powers could not have been exercised after the transferee had further conveyed the land to ,the bona fide purchasers, such as the present petitioner and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to them, therefore, the exercise of powers under section 30(2) of the aforesaid Act by Member Board of Revenue in consequence of which the impugned order had been passed affecting the rights of petitioners that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to them cannot be sustained.
9. Exercise of powers under section 30(2) (ibid) being violative of natural justice is declared illegal and without lawful authority and the impugned orders having been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners are declared as null and void, illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, the impugned orders as well as the impugned notices for resumption of land in dispute are set aside. All the writ petitions are allowed.
10. It is, however, made clear that if at all the Board of Revenue is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to retain the land in question and the allotments made in favour of the original allottees was defective, they are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and may pass appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without being influenced by any observation made hereinbefore. No order as to costs.