1990 PLP 1929 (CLC)

Lambardari grants‑‑‑Suspension of policy‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑No fresh allotment/lease can be made to a Lambardar as per existing Government Policy‑‑‑On specific consideration, however, respondents being in possession of land were allowed to continue in possession on year to year basis‑‑‑While making such order it was stipulated that respondents would give an undertaking in writing to surrender posssession of such land as and when Government directs them to do so‑‑‑Such order, however, did not grant right of any kind to respondents in respect of land in question which continues to be reserved as a Lambardari Lot, though no fresh lease can be made to a Lambardar‑‑‑Respondents have been merely allowed to continue in occupation of land as a matter of convenience on year to year basis on payment of market `rent'‑‑‑Such allotment was thus a purely temporary arrangement which would be discontinued after promulgation of policy regarding allotment of Lambardari grants by Government‑‑‑Applicant had thus no cause to contest temporary allotment in favour of respondent‑‑‑Review application dismissed in circumstances. S.M. Javid for Petitioner. Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st March, 1990. This is an application for review of orders passed by this Court on 9‑2 1988 in R.O.R. No.1277/1987 (Muhammad Ashraf etc. v. State etc.) in which it was decided that while Muhammad Ashraf etc. as heirs of the late Hafiz Muhammad Khan had no right to purchase the Lambardari grant in Chak No.48/DNB, Noor Muhammad the present Lambardar also could not be allotted the said Lambardari grant for the present as the scheme for allotment of lots of Lambardars had been suspended. It was, therefore, ordered that since Muhammad Ashraf etc. were still in possession, they should be given the land on temporary lease on year to year basis on market rent provided they give an undertaking to surrender its possession at any time, without compensation, if required for a public purpose including allotment to a permanent Lambardar under Government Policy the present applicant Noor Muhammad has contested the above decision on the ground that Muhammad Ashraf etc. were not in occupation of the impugned land and that although Muhammad Khan (predecessor‑in‑interest of Muhammad Ashraf etc.) had failed upto the Supreme Court, his heirs had been allowed lease, specially when they already had about 400 Kanals of their own land.

2. I have heard both parties through their respective counsel and seen the record. The impugned order does not grant right of any kind to Muhammad Ashraf etc. in respect of the impugned land which continues to be reserved as a Lambardari Lot. However, as mentioned in the order according to the existing Government policy no fresh allotment/lease can be made to a Lambardar. It was in these circumstances and on the specific consideration that Muhammad Ashraf etc. were still in possession of the impugned land that they were allowed to continue their occupation on year to year basis. It was also stipulated that they would give an undertaking in writing to surrender the possession of the land as soon as the Government directs them to do so. Consequently, if the said Muhammad Ashraf etc. are no longer in occupation of the land, they cannot take advantage of the impugned order and no clarification is needed. However, if they are in possession, then it is hereby clarified that they are neither regular lessees nor have they any right as a lessee under any temporary cultivation scheme. They have been merely allowed to continue as a matter of convenience on year to 'year basis on payment of market rent. 1t is thus, a purely temporary arrangement which will be discontinued after the promulgation of a policy regarding allotment of Lambardari grants by the Government.

3. The present application is therefore disposed of with the above clarification. A.A./366/R Order accordingly.