Tubewell Sinking Scheme

One hundred rupees were deposited with Chairman of Authority, by allottee under Condition No.3, for trial boring for sinking tube-well

Authority did not. make any trial boring despite deposit having been made in time and also a representation having been riled in this regard-Petitioners, held, stood absolved of their obligation under grant, as such resumption of allotments male by Authority was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Statement of petitioner's witness establishing that before resumption of grant notice was issued to petitioner and record showing that same was served

Appellate Court and High Court both concurring in factual finding that resumption of grant was not without service of proper notice

No question of needing further examination

Leave to appeal refused.

Arts. 185(3) & 199-Tube-well Scheme, 1959, para. 7-Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that para. 7 of Scheme does not apply to grant of land made in 1952.

S. 10 & Notification No. COL 16-2-5644, dated 23-9-1959-Tube-well Sinking Scheme-Lease-Uncommanded Government waste land-Board of Revenue cancelling lease on basis of incorrect revenue record (Khasra Girdawari) and High Court also relying on finding of Member, Board of Revenue without examining report of Divisional Canal Officer, a factor for inclusion of land in tube-well sinking scheme-Held: By grant of lease under Scheme vested rights accrued to appellants and such rights could not be defeated by finding of Member Board of Revenue on basis of incorrect revenue record Matter requiring further consideration, impugned order of High Court and Member Board of Revenue set aside and case remanded to latter for deciding it afresh.

Appellant accepting allotment according to lot and] Khasra numbers mentioned in letter without any protest or demur and taking; possession of land-Subsequent to taking of possession appellant trying to take advantage of mistake committed by Department in including acreage also in letter of allotment and moving for allotment of more- lands-Scheme, however, coming to end by time of making such move-View that appellant could got no further allotment of land, helot, correct.

Person allotted less than prescribed area of land under Scheme-Question whether in view of term of Scheme (that area of allotment be 150 acres or thereabout) Member, Board of Revenue was justified in refusing claim for more land to make up deficiency-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.