1968 SCMR 491 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-This appeal is brought before the Court by special leave granted to the appellants Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain to call in question the dismissal of their writ petition before the High Court, for quashment of an order made in the Revenue Department of West Pakistan by which an allotment of land made to them by way of a grant under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was cancelled. The complaint was made that the order of the High Court which related to some 21 writ petitions had not dealt with the specific question involved in the writ filed by Muhammad Hussain. On examining the order made in the Revenue Department it appears that the order of cancellation proceeded on the basis that the writ petitioners were owners of more than 3 acres of land and were thus by the conditions of the Ejected Tenants Scheme of 1957, under which the grant had been made to them, disentitled to take the grant. The order cancelling their allotment was made by a Collector, and in the first instance an appeal moved by them was allowed by the Additional Commissioner. The latter officer later reviewed his order and came to the clear finding that the allotment could not be retained, because the allottees Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain owned more than 3 acres of land in proprietary right. Accordingly the order of the Collector was maintained. A revision was moved before the Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, where the point was brought out clearly that under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in question the leases granted were renewable every year so that if a grantee acquired some land in a particular year which raised his proprietary land to more than 3 acres, the lease would not be renewed in his favour at the end of the existing lease period. The order of the High Court nntains no mention of this specific point with reference to the case of Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain. If the point were not so clear it might well have been necessary to remand this case to the High Court for a propel decision of the writ petition, but on examining the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the terms of the Ejected Tenants Scheme of 1957, under which the grant in question was made, there seems no doubt whatsoever that entitlement to a grant under this scheme I was dependent upon the grantee not being possessed of proprietary land in excess of three acres. In this case, it seems that the two grantees owned 14 acres of land, and consequently they were disqualified for the grant. It seems that the grant had been rude in the first instance through over-sight. The 1957 Schein aso provided that leases granted thereunder should be for a period of one year in the first instance renewable from year to year, until such time as Government should take a final decision in regard to the permanent disposal of such lands or there was a serious breach of conditions of the lease. In fact, in 1960, a dectsion concerning the grant of proprietary rights in lands leased out to ejected tenants had been taken and a scheme had been issued for its implementation. It was entirely appropriate that in 1962 when the grant to the petitioners was cancelled, this have been done on the basis that the grant should never snouid have been made. Since proprietary rights were to be granted to persons who were holding grants made in accordance with the terms of the schemes that have been issued since 1952, and the writ petitioners were clearly disentitled for the grant of the lease, and therefore, for the further benefit under the scheme for grant of proprietary rights, it was right that they should be dispossessed, for the proper implementation of the latter scheme. It is clear therefore that the refusal of relief to the present appellants in the High Court can be sustained on good grounds, and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.