1987 PLP 1252 (MLD)

2. The ground pressed into service by the petitioners is that the land in dispute was sold to them in 1955 and they cannot be allowed to re-purchase the same, at the current market price plus ten per cent surcharge. It was argued in the alternative that at the most price of the excess land could be charged at the rate of Rs. 560 per acre and not at the current market price with ten per cent surcharge.

3. Learned counsel representing the Provincial Government on the contrary submitted that the petitioners had purchased only 28A-4K-1M of land as per details given in the schedule for disposal of the land in question but retained land measuring 4A-7K and 7M in excess. They had derived illegal benefit therefrom as such they are not entitled to discretionary relief. It was also pointed out that petitioners had earlier filed W.P. 3828 of 1985 and W.P. No. 501 of 1985 wherein it was admitted by learned counsel appearing on their behalf that they had purchased 28A-4K and 1M of land they, therefore, cannot lay claim to the excess land to be sold to them. Neither filing of the previous writ petitions nor the admissions made by learned counsel on their behalf were disclosed in this petition and they have not approached this Court with clean hands.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners was unable to give a plausible explanation as to why petitioners concealed filing of the previous writ petitions, which were dismissed by this Court.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. In para. 3 of order dated 21-9-1985 passed in W.P. No. 3828 of 1985 filed by the petitioners it was held:- "Learned counsel has admitted that the petitioners had purchased 28 acres, 4 kanals and 1 marla of land as per details given in Annexure A, but stated that the land measuring 4 acres, 7 kanals 7 marlas, being in excess could have been sold to the petitioners as per condition No.16 of the terms of auction notified by the respondent. The petitioners have purchased only 28 acres 4 kanals and 1 marla of land and the respondent has not deprived them of the same. The rest of the land belonged to the Province of Punjab, and the same has been disposed of by the respondent. The petitioners cannot enforce contractual obligation through the present Constitutional petition." The petitioners failed to disclose that they had filed the above-noted writ petitions. The deliberate suppression made by them in this behalf alone disentitles them to discretionary relief from this Court. The petitioners having retained the land in dispute without legitimate entitlement since 1955 and derived benefit therefrom also heavily weighs against them. They should, therefore, feel satisfied if allowed to purchase the land at the current market price with ten per cent surcharge only. In these circumstances the petitioners have failed to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction.

6. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. K.B.A./M-313/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.