SHER ALI Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑ This is an appeal by leave from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑11‑1981.

2. The appellant as well as Rehmat Ali were both ejected tenants who had received allotment of Government land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. Both cf them had complied with the terms and conditions of the grant and were adjudged by the Commissioner to be entitled to acquire proprietary rights. By a triangular arrangement between himself, Rehmat Ali and one Khushi Muhammad, the, appellant sought permission of the Collector to transfer his grant in favour of Khushi Muhammad and obtained it. By another arrangement, Rehmat Ali got sanction of the Collector to transfer his grant in favour of the appellant. The transfers were given effect to in the revenue record through mutations in 1967. It was in 1976 when Rehmat Ali (respondent No.2) moved the Board of Revenue seeking reversal of the sanction under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act on the ground that he had been subjected to fraud. While examining the question, the Board of Revenue, vide its letter dated 1‑4‑1977, held the sanction granted by the Collector in December, 1966 under section 19 to be void because the Board of Revenue by a circular in July, 1966 informed all the subordinate authorities that permission for transfers of the grant made to the ejected tenants should not be allowed because it was difficult to ensure satisfaction of the conditions of the grant. The Collector gave effect to the orders of the Board of Revenue and reviewed the mutation earlier sanctioned in favour of the appellant. In a different proceeding the Collector reported violation of the Board's circular in respect of transfer made by the appellant in favour of Khushi Muhammad and Revenue of Revenue regularized it. The finding of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the appellant through a constitutional petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High on 23‑11‑1981.

3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance by the learned counsel for the appellant made here before us was firstly that the proceedings taken against him by the Board of Revenue were at his back and that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him and as such the orders are without jurisdiction, and, secondly, that the alienation in favour of Khushi Muhammad being part of the sane transaction, it could not be protected as it suffered from the same taint as was held to vitiate the transfer in the name of the appellant. After carefully examining the case we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed or the first ground alone in that apparently no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant by the Board of Revenue before passing its order. The learned counsel for the respondent made an effort to establish that in fact opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant but then there is nothing on the record to show that in fact such an opportunity was afforded to the appellant. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and that of the Board of Revenue and remand the case to the Board of Revenue with a direction that the case be heard again after affording opportunity to the appellant and other affected parties. There is, however, no order as to costs.

M. I. /S‑145/S Order accordingly.