Pakistan Case LawIRSHAD BIBI and others Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the predecessor of the petitioners. The original allottee was granted State land under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme for a ten-year period, which was renewable under paragraph 8 of the scheme at the discretion of the Collector. Upon the expiry of the lease, the petitioner sought renewal, but before it was granted, the government superseded the scheme with the Lumberdar Grant Scheme, requiring allottees to be Lumberdars. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to renewal of the lease under the defunct scheme. The Supreme Court held that paragraph 8 conferred no absolute right of renewal, but rather discretionary power upon the Collector, and a change in the law precluded relief since the petitioner was not a Lumberdar. Furthermore, the petitioners had enjoyed possession for over fifteen years through litigation. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Does an allottee of State land under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme have a vested right to the renewal of a lease upon its expiry?
- Can a writ petition be maintained to enforce the renewal of a lease under a superseded and defunct government scheme?
- Does paragraph 8 of the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme vest absolute entitlement to lease renewal in the grantee?
AJMAL MIAN, J---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-2-1993 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench in Writ Petition No, 951 of 1970 filed by one Choudhry Fazal Ahmad (deceased), represented herein by his L/Rs, seeking declaration that the new scheme was ultra-vices and that his eligibility should be decided in accordance with the terms and conditions issued on 3-5-1960, dismissing the same.
2.The brief facts are that Ch. Fazal Din (deceased) was allotted State land measuring 12 acres 5 Ka nals and 5 Marlas by Collector, Multan on 2-7-1960 under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The initial period of grant was 10 years which was renewable for a period of 5 years at a time on an application to be made by the grantee to the Collector in terms of para. 8 of the Scheme. It appears that upon the expiry of the above period, he moved an application for renewal according to his averment in the memo. Of writ petition in June 1970. However, before his request could have been granted, the Government through a notification dated 12-5-1971 superseded the previous scheme and introduced a new scheme named as Lumberdar Grant Scheme. One of the conditions of the above scheme was that a prospective allottee should be Lumberdar. Since Ch. Fazal Din (deceased) was not a Lumberdar, his request was not acceded to. It appears that prior to the enforcement of the above new scheme he filed above writ petition in 1970, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment for the following reason:--
"The petitioner cannot claim for enforcement of his 'right' for renewal of his lease under defunct scheme in terms of para. 8 thereof. Even at the time when the Scheme was in force no absolute right vested in the guarantee to seek renewal of the lease. Under para. 8 the question of renewal lay within the discretion of the Collector. Be that as it may, due to changed position of law the petitioner, who is admittedly a non Lumberdar and is not entitled to hold the land even under the Lumberdari Scheme cannot claim any relief from this Court through the present writ petition."
LRs of Ch. Fazal Ahmad petitioners herein have, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
3.In support of the above petition Chaudhry Khurshid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that since the deceased petitioner's lease had expired before the enforcement of the above new scheme, he was entitled to the renewal in terms of the late scheme. Reliance was placed by him on the case of Muhammad Aslam Sial v. Government of Pakistan reported in 1985 SCMR page 9.
However, he further submitted that the above new scheme was also rescinded in 1974. There is another new scheme in force.
We have noticed that on the basis of the above litigation, the petitioners have been in possession of the suit land even after the expiry of about 15 years from the date of the expiry of the above original lease of 10 years. In other words, the petitioners have enjoyed in fact about 3 renewals of the leases of 5 years each. In this view of the matter we are inclined to hold that besides the reason found favour with the learned Judge in Chambers, the petitioners have no case for the grant of leave. The petitioners cannot go on enjoying the land on the basis of the lease which had expired in 1970.
4.Then, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court may observe that the petitioners may apply to the authority concerned under the new scheme which is now in force. It is not necessary for us to make any observation as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner as any party can approach the authority concerned for allotment of the land in terms of the new scheme.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Wali Muhammad Khan585 judgments