Find a Lawyer

Writ Petitions Nos. 4509, 4726 to 4741 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1980

‑‑‑S. 24‑‑State land‑‑Temporary tenancy‑‑Termination of Temporary lessees of State land had no vested rights for grant of further lease after expiry of that lease‑‑Government, held, was competent to prepare scheme for its management and also was competent to dispose of further lease of same through open auction.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.

Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th November, 1980.

This judgment will dispose of the following writ petitions, as common questions of law and fact are involved:‑----

(1) W.P. No. 4509/80, Zafar Iqbal v. M.B.R., etc. .

(2) W. P. No. 4726/80, Muhammad Feroze v. M.B.R., etc.

(3) W.P. No. 4727/80, Muzaffar Khan v. M.B.R., etc.

(4) W.P. No. 4728/80, Muhammad Yousaf v. M.B.R., etc. '

(5) W.P. No. 4729/80, Muhammad Rafiq v. M.B.R., etc.

(6) W. P. No. 4730/80, Muhammad Anwar v. M.B.R., etc.

(7) W. P. No. 4731/80, Javedul Jahan v. M.B.R., etc.

(8) W. P. No. 4732/80, Khalid Noor v. M. B. R., etc.

(9) W.P. No. 4733/80, Ali Akbar v. M.B.R., etc.

(10) W.P. No. 4734/80, Mubin Zubair v. M.B.A., etc.

(11) W.P. No. 4735/80, Tariq Noor v. M.B.R., etc.

(12) W. P. No. 4736/80, Noor Ahmad v. M.B.R., etc.

(13) W.P. No. 4737/80, Abdul etc. v. M.B.R., etc.

(14) W. P. No. 4738/80, Hassan Bakhsh v. M.B.R., etc.

(15) W.P. No. 4739/80, Saifal v. M.B.R., etc.

(16) W.P. No. 4740/80, Mujahid Hussain v. M.B.R., etc.

(17) W.P. No. 4741/80, Bagh Ali v. M.B.R., etc.

2. The land involved in these writ petition can be placed in two categories. Writ Petitions Nos. 4509/80, 4730/8(1, 4736/80, 4737/80, 4738/80, 4739/80, 4740/80 and 4741/80 deal with land which is Charagah. The remaining writ petitions relate to the land which is located within the prohibited zone. Under one under the latest instructions of the Board of Revenue, however, lease of the Charagah land and the land within the prohibited zone is to be disposed of by open auction. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that since they had once become tenants under the State they are entitled to its continuance on the usual terms. It has also been contended that their tenancy could be terminated only under section 24 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act.

3. The petitioners are temporary lessees and, therefore, have no vested right for grant of further lease, Government is competent to prepare a Scheme for the Management of State land. The present lease having expired, Government is competent to dispose of further lease of land through open auction. Since the lease had expired, there is no question of termination of the lease.

For the above reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions. They are dismissed with costs.

H.B.T. 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.