1987 PLP 608 (CLC)

(v) The land was thus not to be put to auction as previously decided. It was further decided that no reference to the Finance Department should be made on these points." On dissolution of West Pakistan the administrative control of the land was taken over by the Federal Government and the decisions of the Board of Revenue West Pakistan were maintained. However the management of the Guddu Barrage Land was transferred to the Government of Sind and it is alleged that the said Government Should have implemented the decision of the Board of Revenue made on 17‑6‑1970, but it was reversed to the disadvantage of the petitioner. By a letter of Colonization Officer, dated 22/24, November, 1975 addressed to the Assistant Colonization Officer, the petitioner came to know about the decision of the Government, dated 17‑5‑1975 which inter alia provided that the price of the land sold to tube‑well owners at the highest auction price obtained in the Deh or adjoining Deh should be recovered in four equal instalments with interest at the original rate viz. 6$. The notices were, therefore, ordered to be issued to these tubewell lessees to pay the amount/Malkana within one month latest upto 31‑12‑1975 failing which the area under lease was to be resumed by the Government and included in the schedule of locals for disposal." The said letter, dated 22/24 November, 1975 further provided as follows:‑‑ "While issuing notices to the lessees, the following points should be kept in view and inserted in the notices and compliance reported to this office upto 5‑12‑1975 positively. (1) The grants of tubewell lessees (group 'B') will be governed under the provisions of Old Land grant policy. (2) The grants will allow to commence from Kharif 1967‑68 as done in the case of Group 'A' lessees. (3) The lessees have to pay the lease‑money of the past years from the year of lease upto 1966‑67, if they have not already paid, at the rate of Rs.12.50 per Acre. (4) In case the lessees decline to purchase the land at the highest auction price, they will be ejected from their lease holds after expiry of one month notice period and the lands made available for disposal to locals and further action for recovery of lease money of the past years will be taken under Land Revenue Act, 1957. (5) The served copies of the notices should be sent to this office on or before 5‑12‑1975 positively. (6) The A.C.O. has to certify in each case of grant that the lease‑money for the intervening period has been recovered or already paid, as the case may be, and will be held personally responsible if the certificate is found incorrect. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Government on the ground that it was passed without any notice to the petitioner which has caused prejudice to him and that he is entitled to the benefits which flow from the decision made on 17‑6‑1970. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but during pendency, respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 applied for being joined as respondents on the ground that they are allottees of a part of the land in dispute. This application was granted and they were joined as respondents. These respondents have claimed that they are proper allottees in possession of the area in disputed survey number and are in possession. They are cultivating the land and paying Dhul and lease charges. In the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 it is stated that the petitioner has not produced the terms and conditions of the lease or grant. It was pleaded that under the Grow More Food Scheme Yaksala lease was issued which was to be renewed from year to year and was liable to be terminated. It was alleged that first decision was made on 9‑3‑1965 but on representation of some grantees (not the petitioner) it was amended by order, dated 17‑6‑1970. These decisions were recommendation and were arrived at in violation of Pakistan Government Rules of Business, 1962. The said Board of Revenue in its meeting held on 26‑1.‑,1971 by the decision appearing at item No. 22 of the minutes of the said meeting suspended the operation of the decision, dated 17‑6‑1970 with a further direction that the matter should be thoroughly inquired into. The matter came up again for consideration and decision, dated 9‑3‑1965 was upheld on the representation of Zaraiabadgar Association on 1‑7‑1974, facility of six instalments instead of four instalments was allowed, but rest of the terms remained the same. It is, therefore, clear that under the Grow More Food Scheme land was to be granted or leased out and this concession was, given to tubewell owners of the area. The first question for consideration is whether the petitioner) has any entitlement and is an aggrieved party. The petitioner claims', allotment/lease of land under Grow More Food Scheme in respect of survey numbers mentioned in Annexure'B' to the petition which according to him was allotted to him and his family members whose names have been mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition. Except the mere words of the petitioner there is nothing on record to show that these lands were leased out: to the petitioner. Syed Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any document from which entitlement of the petitioner to these lands could be established. He has referred to a notice issued by the A.C.O. Punnu Aqil in respect of the land, but this notice was issued to HaR Mahmoodul Hassan. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner namely Haji Muhammad Ahrsan is the same person as Haji Mahmoodul Hassan, but except mere oral assertion of the learned counsel, such clarification has not been made in the petition or any affidavit. We are not inclined to accept the statement of the learned counsel as both the names are completely different and no valid explanation has been provided by the petitioner to clarify it. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of allotment/lease or notice issued to Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. Mr. Abdul Rahim Sheikh, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 has made a statement that Haji Mahmoodul Hassan is the brother of the petitioner and there are several litigations between them in which he is representing Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. In our view the petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to the property in respect Of which notices were issued, and decisions were taken by the respondents Nos. 1 and

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to appendix 'B' to the extract of the Minutes of the 28th Meeting of the Land Utilization Committee held on 17‑6‑1970 pointed out that in Deh tuna 166.17 Acres have been shown against tubewell owners. The name of the tubewell owners is mentioned as Haji Mahmoodul Hassan, and not the petitioner. This document does not confer any right on the petitioner. The impugned decision of the respondent No. 1 does not relate to the property in which petitioner has any interest. He is not an aggrieved C party. Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of the respondents Nos. 1 and

2. He has come with unclean hand by making a claim on the basis of the ownership of the tube‑well which stands in the name of Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. For these reasons by a short order, the petition was dismissed with cost. M.Y.H./5089/K Petition dismissed.