2013 PLP 775 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Through this single order, I proposed to dispose of the Writ Petitions Nos.7817/2010, 7811/2010, 8935/2010, 8934/2010, 9796/2010, 9952/2010, 7124/2010, 9965/2010, 7125/2010, 9794/2010, 7126/2010, 9795/2010, 7127/2010, 7128/2010, 7129/2010, 7130/2010, 7131/2010, 7132/2010, 7133/2010, 8407/2010, 12032/2010, 12033/2010, 12034/2010, 12036/2010, 12038/2010, 12040/2010, 12041/2010 and 12037/2010.

2. The grievance of all the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they are claiming to be the lessee of State land since long. They developed the said barren land and converted the same into green field after spending huge money and labour. Their claim is that they are paying the Govt. dues regularly. Respondent No.1 vide two Notifications No.223-2010-118-C.L (i) dated 13-1-2010 and 224-2010/ 119-C.L (i) decided that all temporary cultivation leases of State agricultural land which was not extended beyond 2003 shall be extended up to Rabi 2010 of the sitting lessees who fulfil the terms and conditions of their respective leases. It is also decided that if the lease was expired on or before 31-12-2003 and the lessees failed to pay the rent but otherwise they fulfil the conditions of lease, they will pay the unpaid rent along with 15% annual increase. As per Clause 3 of the said policy the respective Collectors were directed to issue notices to all lessees within 15 days from the issuance of policy directing them to deposit the outstanding amount within a period of three months and on receipt of outstanding dues the Collector shall extend the lease up to Rabi 2012. In case of default/non-deposit of dues, the Collector shall resume the land and eject the lessee up to 30-6-2010.

3. Admittedly notices were not issued to the lessees and most of the lessees approached themselves to the respective Collectors but the respective Collectors started to dismiss their applications on the ground that original "Fard Neelam" is not available in their record and as such they are illegal occupants of the State land and included their lands in auction schedule. The petitioners approached this court through these writ petitions.

4. Notices were issued and the respondents appeared. Learned Additional Advocate-General defended the action of the respondents on the ground that in the respondent's record the original Fard Neelam on the basis of which the petitioners were allowed to enter in lease land are not available and the presumption is that the petitioner's possession on the land is illegal/unauthorized. Further submits that it is the duty of the petitioners to produce original "Fard Neelam" if they are in possession of the said land with the permission of the then Collector. The perusal of policy issued by respondent No.1 shows that the intention of policy issuer was that the defaulted amounts should be recovered from the lessees and their lease should be extended along with 15% annual increase that is the reason under Clause 3 of the Policy, the respective Collectors were directed to issue notices to the lessees and in case they deposit the amount, their leases be extended up to Rabi 2012 on deposit of entire outstanding amount after 2003. On non-deposit of the outstanding amount the Collector was authorized to resume the land and to eject the lessees. It is also an admitted fact that from the last 20 years the petitioners are in possession of the State land and they are paying regularly the rent/Tawan/ Lagan, so the occupants of the said land cannot be termed as illegal occupants. The DO(R) Chiniot, keeping in mind the difficulties of the petitioners and also the respondent department has sought opinion from the Board of Revenue informing that their Fard Neelam is not available in respondent's record the leases may be extended and regularized. The requested advice is still pending disposal with respondent No.1. After arguing the case at some length it is agreed that all the petitioners will file application with the D.O.(R) for extension of their leases in accordance with scheme ibid and the D.O.(R) will examine the applications of the petitioners keeping in mind that non-availability of Fard Neelam is not the fault of the petitioners but it was the duty of the respondents/department to keep their record safe, after hearing the petitioners the learned DO(R) will decide the applications within one month strictly in accordance with law after receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the property in possession of the petitioners will not be auctioned or included in the schedule of auction till the disposal of their applications. With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. KMZ/44/L Order accordingly.