1983 PLP 833 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 3rd July, 1983. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑This petition for special leave is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑7‑1977 whereby the writ petition brought by the petitioner challenging the order of Governor dated 13‑10‑1967 was dismissed. As per said order of the Governor although renewal of the lease of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner was allowed for a period of ten years but the area was reduced from 120 acres to 58 acres 1 Kanal and 16 Marlas. The case of the petitioner before the learned High Court was that in accordance with the terms of the lease there was a right of renewal available to him in respect of the entire land and the reduction of the area while renewing the lease was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner's father; "Asghar Ali, was the original grantee of the. land in dispute measuring 128 acres in the Ex‑Renala Estate Limited, Sahiwak in Chak No. 13‑A‑

1. R.; Tehsil Okara. On the demise of petitioner's father on 17‑3‑1963, the Government accepted him as one of the heirs of the deceased as the succeeding tenant in accordance with the Condition No. 16 of the grant: The grant in favour of the petitioner was however made for a period of three years with effect from 26th December, 1963 on the same terms and conditions. By a policy decision of the year 1968 which was duly communicated, it had been decided by the Ministry of Defence that renewal of lease should be allowed in good cases of breeding and the area was to be substantially reduced to conform to the‑grade/status of the grantee as held in the Army. The ate of the land was reduced from 120 to 58 Acres go the basis of the said policy decision while renewing the lease of .the petitioner long after its expiry on 26th December, 1966. The petitioner's case was that he had applied for the renewal of the lease in good time and as his work as a breeder had been found satisfactory, the reduction in the area was not justified. The petition was contested on behalf of the respondents on several grounds and it was found by the learned High Court that the factual aspect of the said objections had not been controverted by the petitioner. After analysing the various conditions of the grant, it was found by the learned High Court that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner did comply with his part of the covenant. The notice seeking renewal as required under Condition No. 14 was not given one year before the date of the expiry of the grant and, therefore, what followed, though described as renewal, was not a renewal as provided for in Condition No.

14. After making reference to the documents on the record it was further found that in May, 1967 when the petitioner was not the lessee in strict sense, he had undertaken and opted for the reduced area without any protest. Accordingly, having so acted, the petitioner could not in the Constitutional jurisdiction, challenge the end product of his representation, submission and inducement. After going through the impugned judgment and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. The lease of the land, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has also expired in the meanwhile in the year 1977. In the circumstances, we find no substance in this petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed