1989 PLP 3089 (MLD)

S.25--Petitioners were granted State land on lease under Tube-Well Scheme, but since they failed to comply with terms and conditions of tenancy, Authority resumed land and ordered payment of rent for the period petitioners remained in its possession--Petitioners challenging order for payment of rent, contended that as they had not been paid compensation on resumption of land for which they were entitled, Authority could not demand from them rent--Payment of compensation to petitioners being otherwise not a precondition to resumption of State land, failure of Authority to pay the same, held, would not relieve petitioners of their obligation to pay rent for period they remained in possession of that land. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1988. Through this Constitutional Petition Muhammad Shafi, Habib Ullah, Muhammad lqbal and Muhammad Hussain petitioners want this Court to declare the order dated 20-10-1972, of respondent No. 1 for the recovery of Its. 18,966 from them as arrears of rent' for the period they remained in possession of the land situated in Chak No_ 8-Gajiyani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, to be without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. 2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that in the year, 1961, the petitioners were granted State land situate in Chak No. 8, Gajiyani, on lease for 20 years under the tubewell scheme whereby they were required to install tubewell in the land granted to them within a period of one year from the date of possession of the land and to bring under cultivation at least half of the area within a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of the tenancy. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to bring under cultivation half of the area within the given time, so, the land granted to them was resumed and they were also required to pay Rs. 18,966 as rent for the period they remained in possession of the land, hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned the resumption of the land from the petitioner. He has challenged the order requiring the petitioners to pay Rs. 18.966 as rent for the period they remained in possession of the land. He argued that since under section 25 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the petitioners were entitled to the payment of compensation which has not been paid to them, therefore, the respondents could not demand the rent of the State land for the period they remained in possession. No one has appeared for the respondents to oppose this petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. Admittedly the petitioners remained in possession of the state land upto Rabi 1969 and they had not paid rent for this period. On calculation, the rent of the period they remained in possession of the state land comes to Rs. 18,966. They had not made any application before the Collector and other Revenue Authorities for the payment of compensation to them. There is nothing on record to show that there were uncut and ungathered crops at the time of the resumption of the sate land or that the petitioners had made any improvement, although the petitioners have claimed to have made some improvements on the land. The petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The payment of c#4mpensation is otherwise not a pre-condition to the resumption of State land and failure on the part of the Revenue Authorities to pay compensation under section 25 of the aforesaid Act, does not relieve the petitioners of their obligation to pay rent for the period they remained in possession of the Sate land. Since the petitioners had not paid rent for the period they remained in possession of the land, therefore, no exception can be taken to the demand made by the respondents for payment thereof. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality or jurisdictional defect. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioners may approach the Collector concerned for payment of compensation, if so advised. H.B.T./M-1309/L Petition dismissed.