Find a Lawyer

Sh. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑‑Record for Petitioners.

Mian Nusratullah Sr. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984.2

‑‑. This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. 922, 931, 932, 933, 934 and 944 of 1982, all seeking leave to appeal from the order of an I . C . A . Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑11‑1982 dismissing Intra‑Court Appeals/Writ Petitions of the present petitioners.

2. The Government of the Punjab vide its memorandum dated 13‑5‑1976 reserved 20,302 acres in District Sargodha and 40,260 Acres in Khushab Tehsil (Rakh Noorpur, Mahmood Saheed and Shahwala) for re‑settlement of the person displaced on account of installation of Atomic Energy Plant in Mianwali District. However, by a subsequently memorandum dated 29‑4‑‑1978, the Secretary, Board of Revenue, modified the earlier instructions inasmuch as the allocation of 20,302 Acres made in Sargodha District was cancelled and in its place 8,080 Acres in Rakh Bambhol, 8,823 Acres in Rakh Jharkal and 9,180 Acres in Rakh Tahia Khatwan were reserved for allotment to the said displaced persons. On 3‑9‑1979, the Government of the Punjab announced its policy to allow purchase of proprietary rights in lands granted on temporary cultivation lease, and prescribed the statement of conditions for such purchase.

3. The petitioners, who were temporary lessees in Rakh Jharkal and Rakh Bambhol, apprehending that in view of the memorandum dated 29‑4‑1978 they would not get proprietary rights under the notification of 3‑9‑1979, challenged the said memorandum of 29‑4‑1978 through constitutional petitions. Some of the petitions were dismissed which led to the filing of Intra‑Court Appeals. Some other constitutional petitions which were not yet decided, were also placed before the I.C.A. Bench and all these matters were decided against the petitioners by the one order which is impugned in these petitions.

4.Before us, the competency of the memorandum dated 29‑4‑1978 has been assailed on the ground that the earlier reservation made on 13‑5‑1976 had been under the instructions of the Provincial Chief Minister and as such the Board of Revenue was not competent to amend the same. This point had been raised before the High Court but had been repelled for the reasons that (1) the petitioners had obtained the lease on the express condition that they would surrender the land when needed for re‑settlement of the aforesaid displaced persons; (2) they had filed affidavits in this regard which had thus become part of the conditions of their lease; (3) the notification dated 3‑9‑1979 had not only issued subsequent to the memorandum of 29‑4‑1978 but had also excluded lands reserved or earmarked for permanent grants; and (4) the memorandum dated 29‑4‑1978 had been issued by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, who was also Secretary to the Government and as such the issue of this memorandum was in accordance with the rules of business. Another plea that the said memorandum had issued mala fide was also repelled by the High Court.

5. We find that the earlier memorandum dated 13‑5‑1976 was issued by a Deputy Secretary to the Government. It is not shown that the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, did not enjoy the official status of Secretary to the Government, and that being so the competency of the subsequent memorandum could not be questioned. Even otherwise, the reservation of land in Rakh Jharkal and Rakh Bambhol having been made much prior to the notification of 3‑9‑1979, announcing the policy to confer proprietary rights on temporary lessees, the lands already So reserved could not be, and were in fact not, brought within the purview of this notification as it clear from para. 2(ii) of the notification. Moreover, the notification provides that "no lessee shall be entitled as of right to the purchase of proprietary rights and the Board of Revenue retains its absolute discretion in the grant of such rights and selection of grantees".

6.We thus find no substance in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.

S . Q. Petition dismissed.