P L D 1977 Karachi 566 (PLP)

I. MAHMUD, J.‑This constitutional petition raises the question of the legality of the respondent's demand of payment of the market price of lands granted to the petitioner in the year 1964 in lieu of the Classification Rates prevailing in the year 1945.

2. On 11‑3‑1942, an area of 931 acres of 37 Ghuntas of land in Delis Phull, Cbaubandi and Siyao, Taluka Tando Bago, District Hyderabad, were sanctioned in the name of one Isso Soomar Shidi on lease for 10 years, from Kharif 1942‑43 on usual lease conditions. The lessee undertook to purchase 100 acres at the expiry of every year commencing from the first year and thus to complete 400 acres at the end of the fifth year of the lease, failing which the lease would be cancelled. At the lessee's request the lease was transferred to the petitioner, Zafar Ali Muhammad Din, on 11‑3‑1942 on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner offered to purchase 101 acres 26 Ghuntas before the end of the fiscal year 1943, but he made no such offer to purchase the land in the neat succeeding two years. On 31‑8‑1945, 15‑3‑1946 and 14‑12‑1951, the petitioner made three offers to purchase land to complete the 400 acres according to the agreement, but since the land was transferred to the command of Ghulam Muhammad Barrage, where there was an embargo on the disposal of land at that time, these others were not sanctioned.

3. After the embargo on the transfer of lands was lifted on 11th April 1961, the petitioner applied again for grant of the lands. Thereupon, the petitioner was given a right of first refusal for the grant of an area of 75 acres 17 Ghuntas in Deh Siyao and 68 acres 38 Ghuntas in Deh Chaubandi at the market rate of Rs. 375 per acre. The petitioner executed a Qabuliat on 3‑8‑1964 in favour of Barrage fv4ukhtiarkar agreeing to pay the price at the market rate of Rs. 375 per acre from Kharif 1964‑

65. In the following year, on the petitioner's request, an additional area of 94 acres 74 Ghuntas in Deh Chaubandi and 16 acres 1‑4 Ghuntas in Deh Phull was sanctioned by the Land Utilisation Department of Government under letter dated 14‑7‑1965 conveying Government approval of the right of first refusal by the petitioner in respect of the said lands at the market rate of Rs. 375 per acre. The petitioner paid some instalments at this rate under protest and made representations to the Department against the market rate being charged for the land sold to him, because his contention was that ha could be charged only the Classification rate Rs. 215 per acre prevailing in the year 1945. By a general policy order dated 17th June 1970 the Land Utilisation Department laid down a policy with regard to the price of land granted in the Sukkur Barrage area, namely that the Classification Rates were to be charged from lessees whose leases were sanctioned with right of first refusal prior to 1lth April 1961, while lessees, who got the leases with right of firs: refusal after 1961, were to continue to pay the market rate. As the petitioner's case fell in the latter category, therefore, his representations were not accepted and he was informed by the Department's letter dated 8‑4‑1972 that (to quote) : "Your case for exercising right of first refusal. was accepted as a special case though you had not fulfilled the conditions of the lease. Moreover, your case is not governed by the general orders of right of first refusal". Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present constitutional petition to challenge the demand by the respondent of the market rate for the lands sanctioned in his favour in lieu of the Classification Rates of the year 1945.

4. The main contention of Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner's case is covered by the general policy decision dated 17th June 1970 above‑mentioned and that the petitioner having been granted lease of the lands in the year 1942 with the right of first refusal, he could not be charged more than the Classification Rates prevailing in the year 1945. We have considered the submission but finds no force in it. The petitioner has not produced any Qabuliat or other document of lease in respect of the land sanctioned to Isso Soomar Shidi in the year 1942 evidencing any right of first refusal.

5. We have seen the terms of the lease offer sanctioned by the Revenue Officer, Sukkur Barrage, dated 11‑3‑1942 sanctioning the lease for 10 years from Kharif 1942‑43 to Isso Soomar Shidi of 931 acres 37 Ghuntas, As rightly submitted by Mr. Adil H Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent, it contains no right of first refusal as such, but, on the contrary an obligation or undertaking to offer to purchase 100 acres at the expiry of every year to complete the target of 400 acres by the end of fifth year of the lease on pain of the lease being cancelled. It is not disputed that this condition of the lease was got complied with by the petitioner as he had failed to make any offer during the year 1943‑

44. Moreover, we agree with Mr. Adil Khatri that the grant of land, being a bounty of the State, the petitioner had no vested right to a grant.

6. As stated earlier, on the petitioner's application for grant of land after the embargo was lifted in 1961, he was given "the right of first refusal" in respect of additional areas in Deh Siyso, Deh Chaubandi and Deh Phull as a special case, although be bad not fulfilled the conditions of the lease. But as the grant was sanctioned after 11‑4‑1961, he was bound to pay the market rate of Rs. 375 per acre in accordance with the general policy decision dated 17th June 1970. The petitioner himself had executed a Qabuliat in respect of this area accepting the grant at the rate of Rs. 375 per acre from Kharif 1964‑

65. Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to say that he is entitled to pay the lower Classification Rate of Rs. 215 per acre prevailing in the year 1945 ; No exception can, therefore, be taken to the demand of the market rate of Rs. 375 per acre from the petitioner in respect of these grants.

7. In the circumstances, we find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The above are the reasons for the judgment announced earlier on 9‑2‑1977. S. Q. Petition dismissed.