P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

(b), (c), (h). That Sohan Lal respondent has already been given a Lambardari square on Horse Breeding Scheme and that under Memo. No. 1838‑71/1729‑CV, dated 12‑5‑

71. Paragraph 7, he was not entitled to more than one grant, consequently the present grant under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme should be cancelled, from him. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the peti tioner himself according to his recorded statement have been able to substantiate this ground and to establish that Sohan Lal respondent has any Horse Breeding Grant. During the course of the examination of Jalal petitioner it came to light that during British days Sohan Lal's father Sundar Das had been given some Lambardari grant which has since become proprie tary land. An examination of the Jamabandi of 1968‑69 which the Patwari presented at the time of hearing did not show any further grant on Horse Breeding Condition etc. According to the Jamabandi Sohan Lal now owns 32 acres in squares Nos. 16 and

11. He also obtained some land in square No. 62 in auction. These grounds have, therefore, not been substantiated by the petitioner or his learned counsel. (d) The learned counsel has relied on memorandum No. 9590/60/6243‑C(G), dated 15‑9‑60, This memorandum laid down as follows: "It was not intended to apply this directive to any temporary cultivator such as holding the State land on tenders on year to year basis. In fact the underlying idea was that pending the decision of the question of Policy, regular allottees under an approved Scheme i.e. the re‑settlement of landless and ejected tenant Scheme. Grow Mora Food Scheme etc. should not be disturbed. You are, therefore, requested that the allotment to the selectees under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme of such resumed Lambardari squares as are given on temporary cultivation should not be stayed, but the selectees should get possession of the land and go ahead, in accordance with the statement of conditions." It is obvious that this memorandum is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he was not a regular allottee under an approved Scheme. If anything, this memorandum goes against the petitioner, because the allotments to the selectees under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme were not to be stayed but the selectees were to get the possession of the land. (e) The learned counsel has relied on memorandum No. 11260/60/7616‑C (G), dated the 22‑11‑1960. This memo randum reads as follows: "The Board of Revenue had under consideration a question as to whether the resumed Lambardari lots at present allotted under the ejected tenant scheme or any other approved scheme of Government should or should not be resumed and re‑allotted under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. It was felt that these lots are made available for utilization under the Pedigree Livestock Scheme provided no pro blem of any magnitude was likely to be created and the sitting tenants were given suitable alternative accommodations." It would be seen that this memorandum is not also applicable to the case of the petitioner as he was not an allottee of the State land under any approved Scheme of the Government but was in fact an unauthorised occupant. He could not therefore claim any benefit as such. (f) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Board of Revenue Telegram No. 2406‑71/114‑CLI, dated 15‑5‑1971. This telegram reads as follows: "It has been noticed that in some cases eligible cultivators of State land during Kharif 1969 to Kharif 1970 have been dispossessed and the land in their possession has been con sidered as vacant disposable land under the 15 years lease scheme. It is emphasised that such eligible cultivator s shall not be disturbed." If anything, this telegram actually goes against the petitioner because vide this telegram Government have stopped such area being included for allotment under the 15 years Lease Scheme as is in authorised possession of eligible cultivators. In this case it is the respondent Sohan Lal who was the authorised allottee of the land and this land could not therefore be given to Jalal petitioner under 15 years Lease Scheme. (g) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on some statement of learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 16‑5‑1971, appearing in the press. In matters of Government policy and decisions statements appearing in the cress cannot form basis of decisions without their being supported by the written orders issued on behalf of the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the land in dispute lies within 5 miles limit from Nankana Municipal Committee. According to the statement of the Colony Head Clerk and the comments received from the Deputy Commissioner the land in dispute is not within 5 miles limit of Nankana Municipal Committee.

6. It would thus be seen that according to none of the grounds adduced by the petitioner and his learned counsel, the petitioner can be allowed to retain this land under the 15 years Lease Scheme and the allotment in favour of Sohan Lai Lambardar under Livestock Breeding Scheme cancelled. It may in this connection be pointed out that the Scheme of allotment of 121 acres of State land to Lambardars under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, goes as far back as 1960 and recently Government have made this Scheme exclusive for Lambardars only. On comparative merits as well the respondent Lambardar has a more superior claim for the allotment of land in dispute than petitioner Jalal. In view of all the above reasons and circumstances I do not see any justifiable ground for interfering with the orders of the lower Courts. The revision petition of Jalal is therefore, rejected. Orders may be issued and parties be informed accordingly. Petition rejected.