' This petition which was filed before the High Court invokieg its writ jurisdiction against the girder of the Board of Revenue dated 4-12-1974 cancelling the lease of the respondent has been remanded by Mr. Justice K. E. Chauhan on 3-2-1915 directing the Board of Revenue to pass proper order after hearing the parties on merits.
2. Brief facts are that on 31-3-1953, ore Syed Taj Mohammad Shah was leased out state land comprising Stirs. Nos, 10,15 and 16 measuring 621 kanals, 3 marks situated in Chak No, 409/GB, Tebsil Samundri, District Lyallpur under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme, 1952. There was no promise of grant of proprietary rights in this Scheme. In 1959 another Tube-well Sinking. Scheme was enforced and in that Scheme provision for grant of proprietary rights was made. Subsequently, in the year 1960 Government decided to grant proprietary rights also the lessees of 1952 Scheme subject to their fulfilment of conditions as approved for 1959 Tube-well Sinking Scheme. One of the conditions under the 1959 Scheme was that proprietary rights would rot be granted In the lot if it was situated within the prohibited belt. In 1962, the respondent applied for the grant of proprietary rights in his lot. The field staff reported that he had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of allotment and that the lot was not situated within the prohibited belt, He was, therefore, allowed to pay the full price for the purchase of proprietary rights. However, at the time of execution of conveyance deed it came to the notice of the Collector that the lot was situated within one mile radius of the Municipal limits of Tandlianwala and, therefore, grant of proprietary rights was not competent in view of Condition No, 3 of the Conditions published under Government Notification No, Col-16/2-56, dated 23-9-59 read with Board of Revenue's Memo. No, 7943.6U/4608-C (G) dated 18-6-1960. The Collector, therefore, referred the case to the Board of Revenue who ordered cancellation of the lot in question on 4-12-1974. Aggrieved by this order the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court who directed the Board of Revenue to pass proper order after hearing the parties on merits.
3. The main contention of the respondent is that on deposit of full price he acquired proprietary rights in the land and had thereby ceased to be governed by the conditions other than those set out in Schedule II of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and, therefore, it was nor competent to the Board of Revenue to pass order of cancellation after proprietary title had stood transferred in his name. Reference in this connection was made to several decisions of the Board of Revenue as well as of the High Court and the Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that where a vendee had paid full consideration, the execution and registration of the sale deed was not necessary to the completion of the contract. But the fact remains that in all these cases payment of full consideration was supported by fulfilment of all other terms and conditions of lease. In the present case, however, the lease was obtained under 1952 Tube-well Sinking Scheme.
In which no promise of the grant of proprietary rights was made. It was subsequently that the Government decided vide Memo. No, 7943-60/4608-C (0) dated 18-6-1960, that the lessees under 1952 Tube-well Sinking Scheme should also be given the option to purchase their lots subject to their observance of conditions as approved for 1959 Tube-well Scheme under Government 'Notification No, Col-16/2-56 dated 23-9-1959. One of these conditions was the option to purchases shall not be exccised if the tube-well tenancy was situated within the belt of one mile running along and on the outside of the out limits of any town. Since the lot in dispute was situated within one mile fro the side outer limits of Tandlianwala town, the respondent was debarred uncle the Statement of Conditions from exercising the option for the purchase o proprietary rights nor it was competent to the Collector to sell the lot in his favour. It is thus clear that the order of the Collector allowing the respondent to deposit the purchase money was made in utter disregard of the conditions governing the sale of lots under 1952 Tube-well Sinking Scheme, and was, therefore, without lawful authority and thus void and of no legal effect,
4. It was also contended that while granting proprietary rights the Cols lector was acting as representative of the Government by virtue of Condition No, 5(e) of the Conditions of the Scheme and if he had passed any wrong order in that capacity, it was not liable to cancellation by the Government on a subsequent discovery that such order had been wrongly passedly. This is not correct because it has been specifically laid down under Notification No, Col-15/44/57, dated 16- 10.1960 that any order passed by the Collect as an agent or representative of the Provincial Government, in relation to any matter or thing done in or arising but of the leave of land granted under 1952 Tube-well Sinking Scheme, shall always be subject to appeal and revision by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector acting as a representative of the Government was not to be treated as final and was thus amenable to appeal and revision before the Commissioner, Board of Revenue under section (7) of the Colonisation of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
5. There is also little room for an argument that the petitioner was protected under proviso to section :6 of the Act. This is not correct be cause benefit of proviso to section 16 does not extend to a transaction sanctioned without lawful authority.
6. In the result I hold that the respondent was not entitled to purchase proprietary rights under the conditions governing the sale of lots allotted under 1952 Tube-well Scheme. The order of the Collector granting such rights was passed without lawful authority and was, therefore, void and of no legal consequence. I, therefore, in exercise of my suo motu powers under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, set aside the order of the Collector dated 8-4-1962 granting proprietary rights to the respondent and uphold the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4-12-1974 cancelling the lot from his name. The price deposited by the respondent shall be refunded to him.