1986 PLP 919 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 3rd July 1984. This writ petition is being admitted to regular hearing by consent and is being disposed of as a notice case.

2. The petitioner is a grantee of State land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act who was allotted this land way back in the year 1909. There was a regular sale‑deed also sanctioned in respect of this land and mutations were sanctioned. It so happened that in or around the year 1962 the area in question together with the other adjoining areas was declared to be within the Cantonment limits of Sargodha Cantonment by the Central Government under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied to the Cantonment Executive Officer in the year 1974 for permission to covert this area into residential colony and to sell the said land by plotting for construction of houses. The plea was submitted to the Cantonment Authorities who passed the same on realizing charges for transformation. There were other charges levied by the Cantonment authorities, which according to the petitioner he has paid up. The Petitioner thereafter sold away most of the land to various private Parties who are not associated with the present proceedings.

3. The matter was then taken up by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Punjab who felt that the conversion of the land from agricultural to residential purposes rendered the petitioner liable to Pay charges under para. 550 of the Punjab Colony Manual. After some sort of inquiry, they assessed the charges at 118.13,32,000 per Acre and consequently made a demand on the petitioner to pay up the same.

4. The petitioner has come up to this Court to challenge the powers and the authority of the Board of Revenue to levy charges on the conversion of the land from agricultural to residential use. A number of grounds have been raised in support of the various pleas by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. However, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab Mr. Khalil Ramday has argued that as per para. 11 of the sale‑deed by which the property was conveyed to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, there is a clear stipulation that any dispute arising in connection with the sale or any of the covenants of the sale or relating to matters connected therewith is to be resolved through arbitration and for this purpose the Commissioner of the Division has been designated as the statutory arbitrator. He, therefore, submits that without having resort to the normal remedies at law this Court ought not to entertain the petition in constitutional jurisdiction in derogation of the other remedies which cannot be said to be not adequate by the petitioner. He further submits that the sole apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner against the adequacy of that remedy that the Commissioner being a functionary of the department would be influenced by the demand created by the Board of Revenue and thus there may not be a fair trial .of the petitioner's pleas is not well‑founded. The learned Additional Advocate‑General states that he has instructions to state that this Court may incorporate in its order that the Commissioner while deciding this arbitration dispute will act independently and free from all external influences and will objectively apply his mind and decide all the questions which may arise before him including the question of competency of the Government to demand the conversion charges.

6. In view of the stance taken on behalf of the Government, Mr. lzharul Haq finds himself in no position to adopt a different line.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab, I have no doubt in my mind that all persons acting in the capacity of an arbitrator are really judges in that cause and they are supposed to apply their own independent mind on the merits and demerits of a case. They are to b free from bias and external influences. I am also quite conscious of the fact that the Commissioners are persons who have exercised judicial as well as quasi‑judicial powers for quite some‑time and they are not novices in the department. When they are required to perform this sacred duty of deciding rights between the citizens and the State, they are to act honestly and remain free from leaning for or against any party. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Commissioner is likely to, be influenced by the demand of the superior i.e. the Board of Revenue thus does not appear to be well‑based.

8. It may also be observed that para. 11 of the sale‑deed, contain a very comprehensive arbitration clause and also visualizes the demand or the liability which can be recovered from a person who is, a part to the arbitration dispute.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the writ petition be disposed of by, consensus of both the sides in terms that the petitioner would have recourse to the remedy for arbitration of the dispute which has arisen between the parties.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Order accordingly