1981 PLP 615 (SCMR)

FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-These are two petitions for leave to appeal. C. P: 282 of 1979 is directed against the judgment dated 11-12-1974 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the peti tioner's W. P. No. 266 of 1974, which judgment was affirmed in L. P. A. No. 3 of 1975. C. P. No. 312 of 1979, arises out of the dismissal of the petitioners' Writ Petition No. 1666 of 1976, by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 19-12-1978. The petitioners in both the petitions belong to District Muzaffargarh and had been obtaining State land on yearly tender basis for temporary cultivation. The lands vacated by these petitioners are located at Rakh Drigh and Rakh Thalwali in Tehsil Kot Addu, Muzaffargarh. In or around 1972, under instructions of the Board of Revenue, the State land was no longer offered for temporary cultivation on tender basis, nor was it included in the scheme of fifteen years lease for temporary cultivation notified on 24-4-1971 by Notification No. 162 -711 1205-LET. This aggrieved the petitioners whose contention was that they were old tenants of the land and that in the face of a scheme framed and notified by the Provincial Government under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, it should have been included in the fifteen years scheme and granted to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners' claim in both the petitions was their right to get allotment, either on tender or under the notified scheme, of the land under their temporary cultivation. In W. P. No. 266 of 1979, the learned Judge examined at length the petitioners' claim, namely, to obtain as a matter of right State land by reference to the Colonization of Government Lands Act and the scheme framed there under, and its particular its condition No. 1 which provided that "the Government is prepared to grant on long lease State agricultural land both cultivated and Banjar exclusively for agricultural purposes but no person shall be entitled as of right to receive a lease or grant under these conditions and the Government retains absolute discretion in the selection of lessees." Thus, the petitioners' claim was negatived. The other petition, namely W. P. No. 1666 of 1976 was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court with several other connected petitions and L. P. As. along with L. P. A. No. 3 of 1975, from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 266 of 1974, and this combination of cases had the effect of enlarging the controversy, and that was whether paragraph 25 of M. L. R. 115 applied to the tenants of the State land. The Division Bench answered the question in the negative and then went on to examine the petitioners' contention that they had a right to obtain the State land, and for reasons given by the learned Single Judge held that there was no such right, with the result that the petitioners had no locus stand to maintain the petitions. We inquired from the learned counsel how, if at all, para. 25 of M. L. R. 115 was even otherwise attracted to the present case, for admitted the petitioners' one year's lease had expired. We may here observe the section 2 of Government Grants Act, 1895, excludes application of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to any grant or other transfer of land or any interest therein made by the Government to or in favour of any person whatsoever, and its section 3 provides-- "All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations ever contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment o f the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." The petitioners have, on their own showing, ceased to be the tenants of the State land and have failed to show that they were, as a matter of right, entitled to obtain fresh leases. Oh this premises, there would, even otherwise, be no occasion for the petitioners to rely on paragraph 25 of M. L. R.

115. The petitioners have, therefore, no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. These petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.