1968 SCMR 455 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-This order relates to three Civil Appeals, namely, No. 65 of 1967 by Ghulam Muhammad and others, No.66 of 1967 by Qadir Bakhsh and others and No. 67 of 1967 by Khushi Muhammad and others. The appellants in each case were grantees of Government land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme of 1952, issued under powers derived from the Coloniza tion of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. A term of the scheme was that the allotments were liable to resumption without compensation, inter alia, whenever the allotted land was needed by Government for any other purpose which the Government considered essential. In the year 1960, a scheme was drawn up under which proprietary interests were to be granted to such allottees, but under certain conditions one of which was that no proprietary rights were to be granted in respect of land within 10 miles of the limits of a first class Municipal Committee or within 5 miles of the limits of a second class Municipality. The purpose behind this prohibition is plain, namely, to make provi sion for expansion of the cities in question. In Civil Appeals Nos. 65 and 67 of 1967 the land in question was situated within the ten-mile belt outside Lyallpur Municipality. In Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1967, the land has been treated as being within the five-mile belt outside Jhang Municipality. When the Revenue Department took in hand the implementation of the new scheme for grant of proprietary rights, steps were taken for the ejectment of allottees of such lands, by the making of general orders directing that such persons should not continue in possession as ejected tenants and that the land should be leased out for a year at a time by tender, for temporary cultivation. The 'affected tenants moved against these orders to the higher authorities without success. They were also informed that ejected tenants whose land fell within the prescribed distances from the limits of Municipalities were not to be granted any alternative land, under the Ejected Tenants Schemes, as these Schemes had been brought to an end on the 30th of June 1960. It was against these orders made in communications to the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur that the President of an Anjuman which had been established for the protection of the rights of such persons moved the Board of Revenue and received a negative answer. It does not appear that orders of eviction were issued to the appellants. They, and number of others in like case, moved the High Court for writs, on the basis of three orders as above from the Board of Revenue to the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur, and also a letter from the Board to the President of an Anjuman formed by such tenants in I Lyallpur, refu6ng a request for proprietary rights or in the -alternative for other land under the Ejected Tenant's Schemes. In all the circumstances, the entertainment, of a challenge to the proposed action would have been best postponed until the threat to the position of each writ petitioner had become immediate, i.e., when there had been eviction notices issued individually. The High Court entertained the petitioners as presented, and eventually dismissed them in batches. Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court in these three cases. The Ejected Tenants Scheme of 1952 provided for allotment of "Crown", i e., State land to displaced locals and refugee tenants and small land-owners. Grants were generally to be subject to the statement of conditions issued in respect of temporary cultivation of such land by the Punjab Government by means of a notification dated the 22nd of September 1944, but subject to variations introduced by the scheme itself. The latter notification provided that temporary cultivation leases should be granted, for the period of the allotment order, but in the Ejected Tenants Scheme of 1952, it was provided that every allottee should be furnished with an allotment order in a form prescribed for this purpose and enclosed therewith, and with the instruction of 1952 there was forwarded an allotment form described as parchi tagsim which provided for a number of particulars but not for the period of the lease. The grant was, however, clearly made subject to the condition that the allotment should be liable to resumption without any compensation if at any time the allotted land was needed by the Government "for any other purpose which the Government may consider essential". Consequently the absence of a defined term for the lease cannot operate against the Government's power of resumption without compensation, provided that the need by the Government to retake possession of the land from the grantee was for a purpose considered essential by the Government. As has been seen, a scheme for transfer of proprietary rights to such allottees was put into operation in 1960, which was, however, subject to the condition inter alio, that no land lying within the belts defined above outside Municipalities was to be transferred in proprietary right, so that all such land should be available for future expansion of the city concerned, and that would undoubtedly be for a purpose which the Government could rightly regard as "essential". Mr. Azimuddin appearing for the appellants argued that even if this were so, there was no occasion for resuming the land from his clients. The argument is unsound, for in order to carry out the alternate purpose of making the land available for expansion of the city, it was necessary that the possession of persons holding under a grant not expressly subject to a limit of time should be terminated and by replacing such grants by short-term leases, it should be made possible for the Government to regain possession of the land by peremptory action under the revenue law. More over, the appellants, in the capacity of ejected tenants, were holding the land at a concessional rate of rent and by throwing the leases open to tender, there was a prospect of appreciable increase of income therefrom, which was certainly a purpose essential for Government. Mr. Azimuddin referred to certain instructions of October 1960, issued by the West Pakistan Government relating to the grant of proprietary rights to allottees under the Ejected Tenants Schemes, and pointed out that paragraph 3 of these instructions conveyed to the Board of Revenue a direction that "in future, leases under the Ejected Tenants Scheme should only be granted to self-cultivating tenants and the unit of allottient will be 12 acres." This instruction was referred to in order to falsify the statement made in the letter of the Board of Revenue whose validity was called in question by means of writs, that the Ejected Tenants Scheme had been brought to an end on the 30th of June 1960. The point is of no material importance for this statement was only made as a ground for refusing the prayer for alternative allotments. What is found in the present case is that strictly in accordance with the terms of the grant to the appellants unde the Scheme of 1952, those grants were liable to be resumed in 1960, the scheme for transfer of proprietary rights was introduced and it forbade the grant of such rights in respect of lands lying; within the reserved belts mentioned above outside Municipalities. The implementation of this scheme clearly required that any grant of indefinite duration should be reduced to temporary leases tor fixed period until such time as the land should be required for expansion of the city in question. The challenge to the validity of the general orders issued by the. Board of Revenue to the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur, must therefore fail. In Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1967, we note that (1) it was pleaded that the land was not within the five-mile belt outside Jhang Municipality and (2) that the petitioner was entitled to alternative land. In fact, no specific orders relating to Jhang district, were made the subject of attack in this petition. The two points raised above will be appropriately raised and decided before the Revenue authorities when eviction orders are issued. Mr. Azimuddin finally argued that the instruction which was called in question by the writ petitions had been issued by the Board of Revenue, and not by the West Pakistan Government whose scheme did not make specific provision for resumption of land which could not be transferred in proprietary right. The argument is without substance, for the management of all State land in the Province is carried out by the Board of Revenue under the revenue system in operation in the Province and it exercises ultimate authority in respect of matters falling under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. More over, one of the letters of the Board of Revenue whose validity is called in question in the writ petitions, namely, the letter to the Anjurnan President, clearly states that his request has been considered by Government and rejected. That is enough to show that the Board of Revenue was acting in the whole matter .under the directions of the Government. We accordingly dismiss these appeals but make no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.