Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 903 of 1982, decided on 13th November, 1983.

---S. 30--Notification, dated 3-9-1979--State land--Proprietary rights- Eligibility to--Cancellation of rights--Lessees being landless were allotted State land under .temporary leases for fixed term--Lessees claimed eligibility to get proprietary rights over land due to their continuous possession--Held, grant of leases, their extension, revocation, confer ment of title and laying. down conditions of eligibility were all matters of policies without creating any vested rights in favour of any lessee- Notification determining eligibility itself unequivocally denied title. "as of right" to any lessee and conferred absolute discretion in Board of Revenue in grant of such rights.

Abdul Sattar Chughtai and Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf for Petitioners.

Raiz Abbasi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13^th November, 1983.

This writ petition brought by one hundred and eleven petitioners calls in question collectively orders of the same type placed at pp. 109--117, dated 24-2-1982 of the E.A.C.O. Bakkar, respondent No.3 herein, passed under the direction of the Commissioner (page 118) to cancel their eligibility to 'get proprietary rights in the State lands allotted to them under temporary leases for fixed terms.

2. Their plea was that being landless, they were allotted these lands initially in 1965 on yearly, later on five-yearly schemes, and due to their continuous possession were declared in June, 1980 as per orders at pp. 17 to 108 to be eligible to get proprietary rights thereabout. They claimed that they had even deposited the price but subsequently those orders were reviewed resulting in cancellation of their eligibility presumably because the land was reserved for evictees from Chashma Barrage. They averred that there was no such notification, nor was the area included in the respective schedule, nor were the impugned orders passed in the exercise of lawful authority, nor were those free from mala fides. Lastly they claimed the benefit of the Government letter, dated 17-6-1981 which allowed eligible lessees to continue sitting on payment of 15% over the rent paid in 1980-81.

3. The land was in the meantime allotted to respondents 4--9 as evictees of the Chashma Barrage and hence they came up on .their own as necessary parties. Their contention, as also of the respondents 1--3, was that the land had been reserved for such evictees;, that declaring their eligibility. was clothed with no title; that they had by their own affidavits agreed to surrender possession .as and when the land was required for public purposes and that the very conditions as laid down in Notification of 3-9-1979 provided, firstly; "that no lessee shall be entitled as of right to the purchase of proprietary rights and the Board of Revenue retains absolute discretion in the grant of such rights and selection of grantees", and secondly that lands reserved or earmarked shall be excluded from every grant made thereunder. Letter No. 1360/75, dated 22-6-1976 of Colonies Department was relied upon as reserving all available State land in Bhakkar including the present one, for evictees from Chashma Barrage etc.

4. Besides, it was argued that I.C.A. No. 543 of 1980 precisely dealt with this question holding that the tenants had no claim.

5. I have had the advantage of reading the erudite judgment passed in the said I . C . A . and in fact it is binding on this Bench. It categorically ruled out the claim of the sitting lessees, holding that evictees of various Projects had better rights both in equity as also law to be given these lands.

6. It was not shown if the land situate in Bhakkar was not reserved by' the letter, dated 22-6-1976 referred to above; and if it was reserved for such evictees, then it was totally excluded from all other grants. Likewise, the notification, dated 3-9-1979, determining eligibility itself unequivocally denied title "as of right" to any lessee and conferred absolute discretion in the Board in the grant of such rights. There is no gain-saying the. fact that grant of leases, their extension, revocation, conferment of title, laying down conditions of eligibility etc. etc. are all matters of policies without creating any vested right in favour of any lessee/tenant. Likewise any modification thereof is also a matter of policy decision. There is no right to challenge them, particularly when the petitioners had sworn affidavits binding themselves to relinquish the land whenever required for public purpose. Lastly, they did not agitate the matter before higher forum on the Revenue side and straight away brought this writ. It is not countenanced.

7. As a result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

H. B T

Find a Lawyer Near You

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