Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.2024 of 1968, decided on 8th April, 1987.

---S.10--Board of Revenue (Colonies Department) Letter No.2286-C, dated 22-5-1951--Board of Revenue (Colonies Department), Memo No.13583-59/10239/C, dated 23-11-1959--Hereditary Lambardars holding post on 15-3-1948 and their successors were given option to purchase proprietary rights at specified rate, of land in their Lambardari grants--Such option, however, was subject to condition that same was to be exercised within a stipulated period of one year and purchase price was to be paid either in lump sum or in eight half-yearly instalments--Petitioner after paying some instalments making application seeking extension of time and thereafter remaining indifferent and aloof for a number of years, thereby allowing his grant to lapse under terms and conditions of acquisition of proprietary rights- Government offering concessionary terms but petitioner not availing the same resulting in cancellation of the grant--Validity of such cancellation--Application of petitioner for extension of time for payment of price of land having been allowed, there was, held, no grievance left with the petitioner for which Government could be blamed for not providing him opportunity before resumption of grant.

---Art.199--Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98--Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.10--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Concealment of material facts and submission of deliberately false affidavit by petitioner in his constitutional petition--Effect--Petitioner having been dismissed from post of Lambardar on charges of misappropriation of Government funds, concealed such fact, in petition and asserted to be holding post of Lambardar, both in his petition and in affidavit attached thereto-- Misstatement was made with object of taking undue advantage of fact that grant of proprietary rights claimed by petitioner could be granted only to holders of post of Lambardar while person ceasing to hold such post was ineligible to such grant--Such practice of misstatement of material fact was highly deprecated by High Court--Very premise of the eligibility to avail of the grant having been collapsed to the ground on account of dismissal of petitioner from the post of Lambardar, he would not be entitled to discretionary relief- Constitutional petition being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Petitioner.

M.M. Saeed Beg for Respondents Nos.l and 2.

M.A. Zafar for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 8th April, 1987.

The petitioner was given a Lambardari grant on 7-1-1941 of a piece of land measuring 27 acres 2 kanals and 12 marlas, in Chak No.580/G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad (then Lyallpur). In the year 1951, Government of the Punjab, Colonisation Department, introduced a policy vide letter No.2286-C, dated 22-5-1951, to the effect that hereditary Lambardars who were holding post on 15-3-1948, and their successors, were given option -to purchase proprietary rights at the rate of Rs.150 per acre in their lambardari grants. This option was subject to two conditions. Firstly, the option was to be exercised within the stipulated period of one year, from the date of order i.e. 22-5-1951, and, secondly, the purchase price was to be paid either in lumpsum or in eight hald yearly instalments. It was in categorical terms set out therein that if the option was not exercised within the specified period or default was made in the payment of the purchase price, the grant was liable to resumption when the lambardari falls vacant. This was a pre-warned condition. The petitioner made fan application on 19-5-1952 i.e. within the prescribed period exercising the option to purchase and sought permission to deposit the purchase price in eight half-yearly instalments. The petitioner also voluntarily gave an undertaking in writing, to the effect, that if default is made in making payment of any of the instalments, then the entire sum deposited will stand forfeited in favour of the government and the lambardari land will also stand resumed. This undertaking is appended to the writ petition as Annexure A/I. The petitioner paid the first instalment in time i.e. on 21-5-1952; the second instalment was paid on 21-11-1952; the third was paid belatedly on 24-7-1953; fourth and fifth instalments were paid together equally belatedly. Thereafter, petitioner paid no further amount to clear up the dues. Subsequently, after about 11 years, he made an application on 10--2-1956 seeking permission to pay up his entire outstandings in lump sum. The Collector referred the matter through Commissioner Multan Division to the Board of Revenue, soliciting advice of the Government in this connection, vide letter dated 17-4-1956.

2. At this juncture, it is highly relevant to mention that the Government of the Punjab, Board of Revenue, Colonies Department issued a memorandum No.13583-59/10239-C, dated 23-11-1959 (making special reference to the Punjab. Government's earlier letter No.2286-C, dated 22-5-1951, whereunder option for acquiring proprietary rights was given at the rate of Rs.150 per acre) to the effect that those hereditary lambardars who opted to purchase proprietary rights under the afore referred scheme but had defaulted in making the payments were given a fresh option on the terms viz. (i) the outstanding instalments were to be recovered at the rate of Rs.800 per acre (in view of the fact that price of the lambardari grants was raised from Rs.150 per acre to Rs.800 per acre by the Government since 8-8-1956), (ii) the amount payable by the defaulter was recoverable either in lumpsum or in 8 half yearly instalments with interest at the rate of 4 per annum; (iii) first instalment was payable within six months from the date of that order i.e. 23-11-1959, and (iv) in case of default in payment, the right to acquire proprietary rights was to stand forfeited and the amount already paid was to be refunded.

3. With a view to completing narration of relevant facts, it may be mentioned that petitioner squarely fell within the active ambit of this memorandum and could have availed of this concession by adhering to its terms; however, petitioner chose not to avail of this concession. Though, belatedly, petitioner, vide application, dated 21-2-1964, Annexure 'D' attempted to get advantage of this memorandum. As stated earlier, the time frame work mentioned in that memorandum was, that first instalment was to be paid within 6 months of the date of the memorandum i.e. 23-11-1959 and last payment was to be made by December, 1963; whereas petitioner started only correspondence showing his willingness to be benefited by the concession in February, 1964 i.e. when the concession had already lapsed and within the meanings of the memorandum right to acquire proprietary rights stood forfeited in the year 1963. The Board of Revenue vide its Memo No.7209-67/2112-CV, the impugned order, declined to relax the condition in view of default in compliance with both the memorandums referred to above. However, petitioner was allowed to acquire proprietary rights in lambardari grant which could have been held by him under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, till the time he held the post; and further was allowed refund of the money paid by him. Hence the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner has raised the following contentions:

That petitioner made all efforts to make payment in lumpsum and it was the official agency which consumed most of the time in settling the matter and never informed petitioner as to enhancement of the price or change of condition from lambardari grant to Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. It has also been contended that for default on the part of the official agency in delaying the disposal of petitioner's matter, he should not be penalised. It has also been submitted that the mistake of petitioner is a rectifiable mistake and that the Board of Revenue could not issue a condition, vis-a-vis, petitioner which was relatively disadvantageous, and finally that petitioner has been condemned unheard.

5. Or, the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents contends that the condition precedent of the scheme was continual holding of the post of Lambardar, whereas petitioner had ceased to be Lambardar on 25-10-1968, as on that day he was dismissed from the post of Lambardar on charged of misappropriation of Government funds, consequently he ceased to have the right to acquire proprietary rights under the scheme, set out above.

6. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that petitioner has not come with clean hands to this Court and that he has concealed material facts which_____________ go to the very root of the' matter. To illustrate this point it is submitted that in para 2 of the petition, it has been categorically stated that petitioner is a Lambardar and is thus seeking relief under the scheme. This petition is supported by an affidavit of petitioner, dated 30-12-1968, and in the verification thereof it has been averred that nothing has been concealed from this Court; whereas petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lambardar or. 25-10-1968 i.e. nearly two months prior to the institution of the petition.

7. Now, I advert to the submissions made by petitioner. The main contention of petitioner is that he made every possible effort to make lumpsum payment of the_____balance instalments, but the Official agency had caused delay therefore he should not be penalized for their fault.

8. I have examined the record of the case, which speaks against the stand taken up by petitioner.

9. Apart from the fact that petitioner paid even the earlier instalments, belatedly, but after paying fifth instalment, he made an application after 1 years, on 10-2-1956, seeking extension of time, and thereafter, he completely went into hibernation for 8 years and made the follow up application on 21-2-1964, which belies his vigilance or even concern to abide by the terms. Not only this, but also after the Government on 23-11-1959, granted a blanket concession to all the defaulters, similarly placed petitioner to avail of the right to acquire proprietary rights under the scheme by making payments of the instalments in arrears on the basis of the then prevailing conditions on revised schedule of payment and time period, but petitioner did not even care to avail that opportunity, rather remained indifferent. The Government was being considerate by conferring blanket relaxation. No extra money was being claimed but only the outstanding instalments were required be paid on the basis of the rates, the Government was offering to similarly placed persons. The petitioner was being treated not only equitably and fairly but sympathetically. I think there ought to be limits to every thing including compassion and benevolence. Petitioner was granted right to acquire proprietary rights under the scheme, dated 22-5-1951, conditions of which, he did not comply with, so the grant under its terms lapsed automatically, but the Government showed grace by offering concessionary terms, for the second time, but he chose not to, avail of the same either; rather slept over it. Strictly speaking, the application of petitioner, dated 10-2-1956, referred by the Collector, through Commissioner Multan Division to the Board of Revenue, was deemed to have been allowed in view of the memorandum, dated 23-11-1959. He cannot even plead ignorance of this, because, there is a clear reference to this in his so called follow up letter sent after 8 years, dated 21-2-1964. Thereafter, the ball was in his Court and not with the Government. Consequently, I can safely say that, if, at all, petitioner claims to have been penalized, then he merits to be penalized on his own account and at the hands of none else. The inequitable conduct of petitioner is self demonstrated by the fact that he made one application seeking extension of time on 10-2-1956 and then followed it up after 8 years by another application, dated 21-2-1964. I wonder this conduct can be described by any known standard as "having made every possible effort". This is certainly otherwise.

10. Adverting to the contention as to lack of hearing, I may say that his application, dated 10-2-1956 having been allowed by the memorandum, dated 23-11-1959, there was no grievance left for which the Government was required to call upon him.

11. Independent' of the above, I have noticed with concern that there is concealment of material facts from this Court and deliberately false affidavit has been filed by petitioner which amounts to misleading this Court. Petitioner was dismissed from the post of Lambardar on 25-10-1968, on charges of misappropriation of Government funds, whereas this petition was instituted, supported by an affidavit, dated 30-12-1968. Petitioner has not only concealed the material fact of his dismissal as well as the grounds of misappropriation of funds, but also has made a positive assertion that "he is a Lambardar" on that day, which clearly is a misstatement. This misstatement has been made with the objective - of taking undue advantage, because precondition of the scheme in question is continuous holding of post of Lambardar, which he had ceased to be; thus was rendered ineligible under the scheme.

12. Before parting, I may say that such a sharp practice is highly deprecated. The very premise of the eligibility to avail of the grant collapsed to the ground, on which no super structure could have been raised.

13.In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or fault with the impugned order and thus dismiss the writ petition.

However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

A . A . / M-165/ L 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.