P L D 1978 Lahore 372 (PLP)

Pursuant to the order dated 3rd of July, 1977 (which may be read as a part of this order), an officer has been sent by respondent No. 1 before this Court with the relevant instructions.

2. The land which is the subject-matter of the present petition, was acquired by the Provincial Government from private owners for the purposes of development. The acquisition had been under Thal Development Act, 1949. Under section 30(2) second proviso, if a land has been given to a proprietor in lieu of the land acquired from him, it would be deemed to have been given with full proprietary rights. The term 'regnant scheme has been used in these circumstances.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that non obstante, the above proviso, regrant scheme cannot be treated as a permanent scheme since scheme is that phenomenon which is consciously promulgated under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act of 1912. The contention is in error. A scheme may be promulgated either under section 10 of the above Act, or it may be a statutory exercise of authority. In fact a statutory exercise of authority is on a higher pedestal than the scheme that has been prepared through departmental efforts simplicitor. Under the circumstance, the order of respondent No. 1 cannot be impugned on the ground that it has been made without there being a permanent scheme. In fact, respondent No. 1 has exercised authority vested in him under section 30 of the Thal Development Act.

4. The learned counsel has further contended that for the purposes of temporary allotment of the petitioners, there is no distinction between the State land and the land acquired by the State. This contention is also in error. State land is a laud of different species. It is real property vested exclusively in the owner, whereas acquisition from a private person is for a definite purpose. Such acquisition can be defeated if the land is not acquired for the given purpose. Therefore, an acquired land for a definite purpose is of a category different from the State land. The character of an acquired land has distinctive features of its own. Therefore, it cannot be put in the same class of the land which was ab initio the exclusive property of the State. In view of this, whatever the rights that the petitioners can claim qua the State land, are not strictly available against an acquired lands since the first priority of the acquired land is that it may be applied for the purposes of acquisition. Section 30(2), proviso 2, is such a per.

5. The learned counsel has further argued that anyhow respondent No. 3 was not entitled to acquire this piece of land since it was neither situated in the Mauza where the respondent owned the land acquired nor was he in possession of the land which is the subject-matter of this petition. No such limitations exist in any of the provisions of the Thal Development Act, nor the learned counsel has placed before me any rule or scheme whereby such limitations can be spelt out.

6. The allotment of this acquired land in favour of the petitioners was purely on a temporary basis, and it had to be regulated by the conditions under which he had acquired the same; and the condition being that if the land is requires: for permanent disposal under a scheme or under a statute, whatever rights these may be will not come in the way of the exercise of authority (in a lawful manner) as has been done by respondent No.

1. For this, reference may be made to Notification No. 2298/77/1319-DH-IV (Government of Punjab Colonies Department) dated 25th June, 1977. The subject-matter of this notification is lease of Thal Development Agricultural Lard. For this notification, it was decided that since the Thal Development Authority Agricultural Land leased out on a temporary basis is required for regnant to land owners, in lieu of the land acquired by the Government, it cannot he leased for longer periods. Therefore, the temporary lessees bad to surrender the land whenever it was acquired for allotment/adjustment or any other public purpose. In the present case, the land has been taken from the petitioners for permanent transfer for public purpose. Since the ambit of public purpose includes compensation to the owners from whom land has been acquired. It can also be included within the ambit of adjustment.

7. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. S. Q. Petition dismissed.