2003 PLP 3278 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 10, 24 & 25‑‑‑Lease of land under Animal Breeding Conditions‑‑‑Termination of lease and resumption of said land‑‑‑Land of different sizes was leased out to lessee for a period of ten years under Animal Breeding Conditions in view of record of service of the lessee‑‑‑After expiry of lease period, lease of lessee was terminated and land was resumed‑‑‑Grounds of resumption other than termination expiry of period of lease, were not available on record‑‑‑Lessee had a right to renewal of lease in view of his performance during period of lease‑‑‑Performance of lessee during period of lease was strictly in accordance with terms' and conditions of grant of lease‑‑‑District Collector, was required to take into consideration conduct of lessee during lease and was required under law to serve a notice under S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to lessee and had to pass a speaking/detailed order by applying his conscious mind in passing order for resumption of land‑‑‑Such exercise having not been done in case of lessee, case was remanded to District Collector to be decided afresh in accordance with law. 1985 S C M R 9 ref. Sahibzada Anwar Hamid for Petitioners. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24‑11‑2001 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha whereby he dismissed all the three appeals filed against the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector's order dated 20‑9‑2001. Since the facts in all the revision petitions are identical and the law point involved is the same, these revisions are being disposed of together.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as borne out from the petition, are that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was allotted land of different sizes for a period of ten years under Animal Breeding Conditions for different durations keeping in view their record of service by the Ministry of Defence. After the expiry, of lease period, the lease was terminated by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Army Branch), Rawal pindi on 27‑2‑1995 vide Letter No.5804/269/Rem/C/3/5/D‑4(IV)/95, addressed to the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide letter dated 14‑12‑1996, directed the District Collector to proceed further in the matter under the law/policy. Not having been satisfied with the termination order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 10318 of 1996 in the Honourable High Court, which was disposed of, vide order dated 26‑3‑2001 and the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha with the direction to decide the matter on merits. The petitioners again filed another Writ Petition No. 10641 of 2001 wherein the Lahore High Court passed an order restraining the respondents not to dispossess them forcibly/illegally till the compensation was paid. The writ petition has been disposed of on 14‑6‑2001 with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within a month up to 19‑7‑2001 by providing proper hearing to the parties concerned. The case was taken up by the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, after hearing the parties. The request of petitioners to adjourn the case sine die because of the pendency of CPLA in the Supreme Court of Pakistan was not acceded to by the District Officer (Revenue), District Collector vide order dated 20‑9‑2001. However, he directed the Executive Engineer Buildings to visit the site in the presence of both the parties and assess the value of the building, the compensation of which had to be paid to the outgoing tenant, the petitioners, as required under section 25 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and para.52 of the Notification dated 9‑8‑1983. The petitioners challenged this order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sargodha, who, vide impugned order dated 24‑11‑2001 dismissed their appeal alongwith two other appeals filed by other tenants being similar in nature. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Officer (Revenue) has passed the order without giving a proper hearing in accordance with the judgment of the Honourable High Court. He further contended that the petitioner's performance during the period of lease was strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the grant. According to the learned counsel, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) had also erred in passing the impugned order in not appreciating the contentions of the petitioners and the decisions of the superior Courts as well as the remand order passed by the Honourable High Court.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. A perusal of the letter dated 4‑8‑2000 addressed by the Section Officer, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Army Branch) to the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab stating that the lease period has expired and the land has reverted to the State by operation of Condition No. 50‑A of the Government requesting for issuance of instructions to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector concerned to resume the stud land and give it on Superdari. This letter was endorsed to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sargodha for necessary action under the law by the Board of Revenue. The grounds of resumption other than termination of the period of lease are not available on record. It was contended that the petitioners had a right to renewal of lease in view of their performance during the period of the lease, that the District Officer (Revenue) was squired under the law to serve a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government ands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to the allottees and ad to pass a speaking/detailed order by applying his conscious mind to the ground constituting resumption of land in terms of judgment laid down by the Honourable supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1985 SCMR page

9. The Government approved different sets of terms and conditions for different Canal Zones for the purposes of the scheme in hand. The case is, therefore, demanded to the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector, Sargodha to be decided afresh in light of this judgment within a month by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances resulting in the resumption of the leases as no ground other than expiry of he terms of lease has been mentioned even in he reference from the Ministry of Defence in light of the basic document, the statement of conditions, signed by him with the lessees for the grants in question. He may also examine if a notice was required to be issued to the petitioners even in cases of termination of period of lease. It may be relevant to examine clause 51 of the Statement of Conditions governing the leases. Till then, status quo will be maintained. H.B.T./64/Rev. Order accordingly.