Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 11288 of 1980 decided on 22nd December, 1982.

---S. 21 ‑‑Lease, extension of‑Lessee executing bond according to Colonies Department memorandum dated 18th July, 1979 to surrender land, if during currency of lease period same is required for adjustment or any other public purpose‑P‑Petitioner, held, cannot contend automatic extension of lease‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. .9.

Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Malik Allah Wasaya for Respondents Nos 3 to 7.

Date of hearing: 6th December, 1982.

The petitioner lessee of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals situate in Chak No. 19811'. D. A. of Bhakkar. The land belonged to the That Development Authority. The period of his lease expired iii Rabi 1980. The Thal Development Authority declined to extend the lease on the ground that the land was required for readjustment of the claim of the local owners and transferred the same in favour of Mst. Bakhoo. Upon this the petitioner moved this writ petition claiming that by virtue of a notification issued on 1st March, 1978 by the Colonies Department of the Government of the Punjab his lease stood automatically extended up to Rabi 1983 and that the revenue authorities were not competent to cancel the same.

2. The petition eras resisted by the respondents who claimed that the land was given on lease to the petitioner on the clear understanding that he would surrender its possession if at any time it was required for a permanent scheme of for adjustment of the claims of the local land owners and as in this case the land had been allotted to a local owner for the said purpose the petitioner was not entitled to any extension in the period of has )vase which already stood expired. In support of this contention the affidavits filed by the petitioner at the time of obtaining lease or extension of lease were also produced in, which the said understanding was clearly recited.

3. The petitioner has not disputed the correctness or genuineness of the affidavits which have been attributed to him or the undertaking which he had given therein. His case however is that the land held by him was never owned by Mst. Hakhoa and for that reason it could not be allotted, to her in adjustment of her claim. I find little merit in this contention for he has not been able to produce any instructions of the Government or Thal Development Authority to the effect that while making adjustments only such land as was originally owned by the local owner could be giver to him. Admittedly Mst. Bakhoo was a local owner in the village where the hind in dispute is situate. This being so I do not how the petitioner can question the decision of the Thal Development Authority ,in giving the land in dispute to her in adjustment of her claim.

4. The petitioner has relied upon the instructions issued by the Colonies Department on Ist March, 1978 in support of his claim that he is entitled to extension of his lease upto Rabi 1983 but then these instruc tions apply to State land whereas the land in dispute belongs to the Thal Development Authority. On the other hand the leases of land belonging to the Thal Development Authority are governed by the memorandum issued by the Colonies Department on 18th July, 1979. It is stated in this memo randum that the lessees should be called upon to execute bonds to the effect that if during the currency of lease period the land is required for adjust ment or any other public purpose they shall surrender the possession peacefully. This being the position it is hardly open. to the petitioner to contend that he is entitled to automatic extension of his lease.

5. For the reasons stated above I find no merits in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.

M. A. K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.