MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAHIMYARKHAN
The petitioner, a former allottee of State land, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner's lease of State land had expired, and his application for a five-year extension under a policy circular was rejected after the Colonies Department changed its policy to dispose of such land by auction, leading the Collector to file his application. The High Court had dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had no vested right to extension. Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that the petitioner had moved departmental authorities for relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner must first exhaust available departmental remedies before seeking judicial adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with these observations, and leave to appeal was refused, establishing the principle that litigants must exhaust departmental remedies prior to invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether a petitioner must exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the High Court through a constitutional petition?
- Does an allottee of State land possess a vested right to the extension of a lease upon its expiration?
- Can leave to appeal be refused when the petitioner has bypassed available departmental forums?
ORDER
1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a former allottee of State land, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 5-7-1981 whereby his appeal against the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed, The petitioner had received allotment of State land for cultivation. The lease period was a year and extended from time to time finally expiring in Rabi 1978. The petitioner wanted the extension of the lease in his favour for 5 years in terms of the policy then in force on the strength of a circular dated 8th of June, 1975. Before orders could be passed the policy of the Colonies Department changed and all such land was ordered to be disposed by the auction. The application of the petitioner was filed by the Collector. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Collector to review his lease for five years by resort to the Constitutional petition which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no vested right either to be heard or to be granted the extension of the lease which he was claiming. His appeal also failed. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed us that the petitioner bas also now moved the departmental authorities for affording him relief a according to him the Board of Revenue has in certain other cases pending before it granted such allottees the required relief.
3. We notice that in this case the petitioner had approached the High Court without exhausting the departmental remedy. The petitioner should first exhaust that remedy before getting his claim adjudicated on merits. In view of the petitioner having availed of the departmental remedy in the meantime he should exhaust. This petition is therefore disposed of in terms of these obser--vations and the leave to appeal is refused.