2002 PLP 657 (MLD)

4. Mr. Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Additional Advocate‑General submits that impugned orders are valid as petitioners had sold the land granted to them under the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation 115 of 1972 in, violation of terms and conditions prescribed by the Competent Authority at the time of granting land to the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners have alternate remedy under paragraph 29 of the aforesaid Regulation. He further urges that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 adopted the arguments of Additional Advocate‑General.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves.

6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the paragraph 18 and relevant instructions issued by the Competent Authority under Martial Law Regulation to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ (Grant of land to tenants) "(I) Land which vests in Government under the provisions of paragraph 13 or paragraph 14 shall subject to the other provisions of this paragraph, be granted free of charge to the tenants who are shown in the Revenue Records to be in cultivating possessions of it in (Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1971‑72) (or in the case of land vesting in Government on the basis of a declaration made pursuant to clause (ee) of sub‑paragraph (1) of paragraph 12, to the tenant who is shown in the Revenue Record to be in cultivating possession of it in the year immediately preceding such declaration): (Provided that no land shall be granted to tenants who, but for the making of this Regulation, would have entitled to inherit land from any of the person from whom land has been resumed under this Regulation). (2) Where a tenant who is entitled to the grant of land under the said sub‑paragraph (1) already owns any land, he shall be granted only so much land under the said sub‑paragraph which together with the land already own by him equal an area of a subsistence holding. (3) Where any land is not shown in the Revenue Records to be in cultivating possession of any tenant, during (Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1971‑72) it shall be granted to such tenant or other persons, owning less than a subsistence holding, and on such terms and conditions, as the Government may determine: (Provided that Government may utilize any such land for such public purpose as it may deem fit). (4) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply to orchards, (or to any State Land granted on instalments where an instalment in respect of such land remains unpaid). "1 The grantee‑‑ (a) shall not alienate by sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise the grant or any portion of the grant during a period of 25 years from the date of the grant, provided that for the purpose of obtaining a loan for the development of the land the grantee may mortgage it in favour of:‑‑ (i) the Provincial Government; (ii) Government sponsored institution; or (iii) a Cooperative Society. " "

3. When the Deputy Land Commissioner, or an Assistant Land Commissioner specially empowered by the Deputy Land Commissioner, is satisfied that the grantee in possession of the land has committed a breach of any of the provisions governing the grant, he may after giving the grantee an opportunity to appear and state "his objection, resume the grant, or impose on the grantee a penalty not exceeding Rs.1,000 which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue:‑‑ Provided that if the breach is capable of rectification, the Deputy Land Commissioner, or the Assistant Land Commissioner concerned, shall not order the resumption of the grant unless he has allowed the grantee an opportunity to rectify the breach within a reasonable period not exceeding 30 days from the date of the order.

4. Subject to the provisions of appeal and revision, the grantee shall within 30 days of the order of resumption leave the land and surrender it peacefully to the Deputy Land Commissioner, and if not required by the Deputy Land Commissioner, the grantee shall pull down and remove any structure existing thereon and deliver the possession of the land in a level state or in its former condition. If the grantee fails to deliver possession of the land to the Deputy Land Commissioner within the prescribed period, the Deputy Land Commissioner shall eject the grantee with use‑of such force, including Police force, as may be necessary."

7. The aforesaid paragraphs of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 and notification dated 23‑10‑1972 are not in conflict with each other.

8. Mere reading of the aforesaid notification read with paragraph 18(3) of M.L.R. 115 of 1972, we do not find that notification is in violation of paragraph 18 of the M.L.R., 1972. It is pertinent to mention here, that notification with regard to the terms and conditions qua the disposal of the land was issued by the competent authority vide aforesaid notification dated 23‑10‑1972 whereas the land in question was granted to the petitioners by the Deputy Land Commissioner, vide orders, dated 26‑4‑1976. It is admitted fact that petitioners had sold the land in question in violation of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the grant. Meaning thereby petitioners flouted the spirit of Land Reforms under which they were allotted land. It is also admitted fact that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners that the petitioners had sold the land in question in violation of terms and conditions of the grant, therefore, writ petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by Khuda Bukhsh v Sharif and another 1974 SCMR

279. It is also admitted fact that the petitioners have alternate remedy under para. 29 of M.L.R. 115 of 1972 before the Federal Land Commissioner. In this view of the matter, writ petitions are not maintainable as per principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 SC 246). The petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of the grant. In this view of the matter, petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands as it is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity mush come with clean hands. Since the petitioners do not approach this Court with clean hands, we do not want to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioners as per principle laid down in Nawabzada Ronaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of Tribunals below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. M. Mussadaq Naseem Sindhu (PLD 1973 Lah. 600). 9 In view of what has been discussed above, these writ petitions have no merits and the same are dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./ S‑310/L Petitions dismissed.