2014 PLP 2381 (YLR)

SHOAIB SAEED, J.

This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 24-7-2012 and 29-12-2011 passed by respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.3 and 4 were given Charagah/State Land on lease under memo of Board of Revenue No.8837-79/325-CLI dated 11-2-1984. The lease was extended till Rabi 2011, thereafter it was again extended till 17-6-2002 but was resumed vide order of D.D.O.(R) Mailsi dated 24-12-2002. The D.D.O.(R) Mailsi vide order dated 12-8-2008 directed Tehsildar Mailsi to put the crops to open auction on 3-8-2009. The petitioner purchased the same for Rs.185,

000. Later, two appeals against the said order were filed by the respondents and also against the orders of D.O.(R) dated 24-1-2009 and 7-7-2009 by which ejectment of the respondents was ordered. The said appeals were dismissed by E.D.O.R. Vehari vide order dated 11-8-2009. The said order was challenged by respondents Nos.3 and 4 through R.O.R. No.1326 of 2009 before the Board of Revenue which were accepted vide order dated 27-5-2010 and the case remanded to D.D.O.(R) Mailsi with direction that he should decide the case in accordance with the policy dated 13-1-2010. After hearing the parties, application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading the petitioner (Waris Ali Zahid) as a party was also rejected with observation that he was at liberty to move his case before the D.D.O.(R) Mailsi. D.D.O.(R) Mailsi on remand of the case to him extended the lease of respondents Nos.3 and 4 till 2012 vide his order dated 29-12-2011. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner in the Court of A.C.R. Vehari through an appeal who accepted the same vide his order dated 8-3-2012. The said order was challenged by respondents Nos.3 and 4 before M.B.R. (respondent No.1) in revision who accepted the same vide his order dated 24-7-2012 and restored the order of respondent No.2 dated 29-12-2011. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 13-1-2010, two Notifications No.223-2010/118-C.L.I. and No.222-2010/ 117-C.L.I. were issued. It was contended that in terms of Clause 1 of the said notification, extension could not be granted, in terms of lease land which had already been resumed. The order for renewal/extension dated 29-12-2011 passed was contrary to the said condition of the notification. Similarly, through the other Notification No. 222-2010/117-C.L.I. cultivators with less than four acres of land could participate in the restricted auction. Respondents owned more than four acres of land so they were not eligible for even restricted auction. The benefits derived under the said notification on both counts having land more than as prescribed in the notification and renewal in respect of resumed land was not available to the respondents. It was also contended that the State Land was available only for the residents of Chaks, respondents being outsiders were not eligible for land on temporary lease terms. Attention of the Court was drawn to copies extracts from register record of rights wherefrom it was evident that both the respondents owned more than four acres of land. The land in dispute being a Charagah should have been leased out in the light of the Notification No.222-2010/117-C.L.I., the orders were pre-in curriam.

4. Conversely, it was argued that the petitioner has no locus standi as he had never been in possession of the disputed land, being not an aggrieved party, the petition was not maintainable, petitioner at one stage filed an application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading as party, which was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue. Order dated 11-2-1984 was never challenged by the petitioner, the said order attained finality.

5. Clause (ii) of Notification No.223-2010/118-C.L.I. provides that existing lease holder were given the benefit of extension by payment of 15% annual enhancement over the rent paid last time. Explanation attached to the said clause further clarifies that in case of non-payment of rent, but if the lessee fulfilled rest of the conditions of lease rent for the unpaid period with 15% annual increase could be made. Clause III further states that after clearance of dues aforesaid lease should be extended up to Rabi 2012. It was contended that at the time of lease of demised land in the year 1984, petitioner did not own any land, copy of record of rights referred also belie the contentions of the petitioner, therefore, penal provisions with reference to letter dated 18-6-1985 were not attracted under the circumstances. Similarly, the penal provisions of Notification No.222-2010/ 117-C.L.I. were not attracted under the circumstances. The disputed land, thus, cannot be put to restricted auction.

6. Petitioner has based his right having purchased crops which were put to auction on 3-8-2009. The land in question was never leased out to the petitioner at any stage as is evident from record, the said land throughout remained on lease with the respondents who are still in its possession. The notifications in reference benefit the lessee in case of fulfilment of the conditions as mentioned therein, both the respondents did not own land when the disputed land was leased out to them. Land presently owned by the respondents was purchased long after leasing of the disputed land. Farads referred in this regard relate to the years 2007-2008 and 1994-95 which have no bearing in reference to Notification No.222-2010/117-C.L.I. and letter dated 18-6-1985. The petitioner has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved person.

7. In view of the above, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed accordingly. ARK/W-2/L Petition dismissed.