P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

QADEERUDDIN AHMED, J.

This is a writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed "to refrain directly or indirectly or through their subordinate from recovering the land revenue assessment demanded in annexure 'A' or taking any steps under the Sind Land Revenue Code or any other law for their recovery". One of the grounds of attack of the petitioner is that no proper sanction was given in 1943 by the Government of Sind under section 102 of the Sind Revenue Code, 1879 to the assessment which was made by the Officer-in-charge of Survey. The next argument is that if the sanction, which was given by the Sind Government was in accordance with section 102 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, then it was valid for ten years, and that it cannot be utilised for recovering land revenue from 1953. According to Mr. Bhutto, the learned counsel of the petitioner, the sanction contemplated in section 102 should be for a fixed number of years. Section 102 of the Sind Land -Revenue, Code is as follows: "The assessment fixed by the Officer-in-charge of Survey shall not be levied without the sanction of the Provincial Government. It shall be lawful for the Provincial Govern ment, to declare such assessments with any modification which it may deem necessary, fixed for a term of years not exceeding thirty in the case of lands used for the purposes of agriculture alone, and not exceeding ninety-nine in the case of all other lands". On the basis of this section, the Government of Sind sanction ed the assessment fixed by the officer-in-charge of survey. The sanction is contained in paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Government dated the 28th July 1953. It is as follows: "The revised settlements should be guaranteed for a term of 10 years. The new rates should be introduced on the current year 1942-43 and levied from the-year 1943-44". Mr. Bhutto contends that the words "shall be guaranteed for a term of 10 years" do not correctly carry out the terms of section 102 because in terms of this section a fixed term of years not exceeding thirty was to be stated and during the stated term of years only land revenue on the basis of the assessment could be recovered. Instead of following the terms of this section, the Government, according to the counsel, stated the period during which the settlement was guaranteed. The resolution for this reason was invalid ab initio. More over, the period stated it being of 10 years and this period having expired, neither the assessment nor the sanction are valid. No fresh and revised assessment has been made after 1953, aid therefore the levy and recovery of land revenue in Taluka Ratodero, District Larkana, in which the lands of the petitioner are situate, is illegal. The reply of A. A. G. is that the resolution is in accord ance with the terms of section 102, because according to this section, it was not incumbent on the Government to fix a, term of years during which the assessment fixed by the officer- in-charge of survey was or was not recoverable. All that the section laid down was that it was lawful for the Govern ment to declare that the assessment was fixed for a number of years not exceeding thirty. It appears to me that there is nothing in the section which makes it necessary for the Government to state that the assessment would be valid for a fixed term of years, and not afterwards. It appears possible that the declaration made permissible by the section can be made by the Government more than once and that the form of declaration required by the section would apparently be satisfied if is was made clear in the declaration that the assessment was fixed ; or in other words, was not alterable during a given number of years not exceeding thirty. If this reading of the section is correct, then the language of the resolution is strictly in accordance with it. Mr. Bhutto's argument that the term of ten years mentioned in the resolu tion having expired, the assessment and the sanction have both lost their validity, is answered by the very language of the resolution. According to the resolution, the settlement was guaranteed for a term of ten years, This guarantee has been fulfilled. On the expiry of the period of guarantee, a question may arise as to what is the position of the assessment with regard to the following years ? But it is no reply to the question to say that nothing is mentioned in the resolu tion regarding the following years. It is just possible that the argument of the learned counsel goes up to a point and stops there. It may be incomplete, but it does not follow from it that the levy and recovery of land revenue after the expiry of the term of ten years is invalid either on account of B section 102 or on account of para. 10 of the resolution. The case of the petitioner is not that the Government has not sanctioned assessment under section 102 for the Years follow ing the expired ten years. Mr. Bhutto has argued that the assessment fixed from 1943 onwards was in accordance with what is known as the 'sliding scale', in which the quantity of the produce is fixed according to the quality of the land and its cash value is assessed each year according to the market price. The quantity of produce has decreased according to him because of see page, selinity, and water-logging. Moreover, damage has been caused to the crops of the petitioner on account of rains and some other factors. The consequence of these factors is said to be that the figures taken into account in 1943 have become hopelessly out-dated and are 'effete'. The reply on behalf of the respon dents is that, if the yield has actually decreased on account of the factors mentioned by the petitioner, then they are compensated by the Government in the shape of 'Fasli' remis sion and rebate in assessment, and can be taker, into consi deration at the time of the revision of the settlement after conducting crop experiments on various crops. But they contend that actually the use of fertilizers, mechanised methods of cultivation, 'pest control and improved varieties of seed have increased the yield per acre. The principal factor, accord ing to the respondents, for determining the assessment rate every year is the price factor, and assessment rates vary as the prices rise or fall every year. Mr. Bhutto has conceded that the correctness of the amount of yield and of prices is a question which requires ascertainment of facts and figures by C investigations made on a large scale and is not a proper subject-matter of a writ petition. His last argument is that a rational-consequence of the unification of the former Provinces into the Province of West Pakistan must be that throughout the Province, there should be a uniform system of land revenue assessment. According to him, no reasonable ground exists for the existence of different land revenue systems in the new Province. The existence of different land revenue systems in the various areas of th-e Province of West Pakistan is, according to him, in contravention of Article 5 of the Constitution. The reply of the respondents is that the question of the unification of the system of levying assessment rates is under the considera tion of the Government, although assessment of rates and recovery of land revenue on the basis of the settlements enforced in 1943 is not in contravention of Article 5 of the Constitution. The Sind Land Revenue Code is still the law of the area in which it was enforced before the Province of West Pakistan came hit,,) existence, and according to section 102 of the Sind Land Revenue Code the rate of land revenue assessment on agricultural land can be the same for a period of thirty years. The argument raised by Mr. Bhutto implies that the system of land revenue envisaged by the Sind Land Revenue Code is disadvantageous to the residents of the areas where the law is in force and that the systems of land revenue assessment, which are in force in other areas, are more advantageous to the residents of those areas, and therefore, there is inequality before law amongst the citizens of the same Province. This argument also presumes that the circumstances of the citizens of West Pakistan residing in all areas are one and the same, and therefore there is no basis for the enforce ment of different systems in different parts of the Province. If this is what the case of the petitioner is, then he ought to have compared in writ petition the disadvantages and the advantages of various systems of land revenue and also brought out the uniformity of circumstances in all areas of the Province, so that the differentiations existing in the systems of land revenue could be shown by him to be unjustified. The petitioner has however, not even attempted to do so. He has dealt with this subject in two short paragraphs without even touching the question as to what: comparative advantages or disadvantages of the different systems of land revenue are, and whether the relevant circumstances prevailing in different parts of the Province are uniform or not. All that he has said in the writ petition is that, although Sind has been merged into the Province of West Pakistan, different systems of assessment are being applied to different parts of the Province, and that the system of land revenue assessment should be uniform throughout the Province. It is stated by the petitioner that there is no reasonable ground for this classification and the enforcement of different systems of land revenue assessment. These averments are too sketchy and are based on a presump tion that the burden of proof that uniform circumstances do not exist throughout the Province is on the respondents. This form of pleadings is neither satisfactory nor does it appear to be correctly conceived. The result of the above is that the injunction application of the petitioner is dismissed. The writ petition was not admitted by me, and it was ordered that summary hearing of the 'main petition and the hearing of the injunction application should be fixed for the same date. It appears to me that the petition does not dis close a prima facie case. The petitioner is late in coming to Court by 14 years if the resolution of the Government was invalid ab initio and he is late by about 4 years, if it is invalid from 1953. The petitioner has no case for regular hearing. The main petition also is, therefore, dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.