1982 PLP 1092 (CLC)

The representation of the tube‑well owners were '`rejected and it was decided that lands commanded by tube‑wells should be disposed of as decided the meeting of Land Utilization Committee held in March, 1965 on the following terms and conditions (i) The tube well‑owners should be charged the highest auction price for land sold in the same or adjoining deh and not even the average price ; (ii) The holding should not exceed 240 acres ; and (iii) If a tube‑well owner is otherwise eligible i.e. being Mehagdar, Small Khatedar etc., his case may be considered on merits." It is an admitted position that in pursuance of the above policy the petitioners agreed to purchase the land on the basis of the highest auction price for land sold in the same or adjoining Deh inasmuch as they paid 1/4th price and also obtained Ajazatnamas in terms of the above policy.

3. It further seems that on 17‑6‑1970 a meeting was held in the Chamber of the Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, which was attended by as many as 16 officials named therein, in which inter alga, a decision under Item No. 4 was taken. It may be advantageous to reproduce herein below Item No. 4 from the Minutes of the Meeting annexed to the petitions, which reads as follows :‑ "Item No.

4. Grant of land to Tube‑well Owners. The background of this case was explained by the Secretary, Land Utilization Committee. He added that these allottees were lessees on yearly basis only and .that any decision to grant them proprietary rights would not be covered by any statement of conditions. The Director Projects Gudu Barrage however stated that practically of the allottees had been offered to purchase the land in accordance with the previous decision of the Land Utilization Committee and that they had paid 1/4th of total price and obtained Ijazatnamas. The following decisions were taken :‑ (i) The grantees in respect of remaining area shown in Appendix 'B' to the working paper should also be required to exercise the option to purchase by 31st August, 1970. (ii) The price to be charged should be related to the period when the lease was given and should be the average price obtaining in the vicinity during 3 years prior to the date of the lease. (iii) The number of instalments was to be 10. (iv) Other. terms and conditions would be the same as per applicable to the purchasers of resumed land under Martial Law Regulation No. 64. (v) The land was thus not to be put to auction as previously decided. It was further decided that no reference to the Finance Department should be made on these points."

4. After the above decision, it seems that the petitioners approached the respondent Department and requested them that they should also be given benefits of the above decision taken in the above meeting. However, the respondents declined to grant the above benefits, and hence the petitioners have filed the present petitions. The above petitions have been resisted by the respondents and, inter alia it has been averred that the petitioners had got the land inter alia on the basis of Annexures X‑1 and X‑2 quoted hereinabove inasmuch as they bad paid certain amount on the above basis and obtained Ajazatnamas. It has been further averred that the decision contained in the above Minutes of the Meeting was not implemented and that the above decision was in contraven tion of the Government Business Rules and, therefore, has no legal sanctity.

5. In our view, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for sustaining the above petitions. The above quoted decision indicates that it does not cover the petitioners' cases as the above decision was to be made applicable to the land, which remained un-disposed of by the above time. Admittedly the petitioners had obtained the land in question on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in Annexures X‑1 and X‑2 quoted herein above inasmuch as they had paid certain amount and obtained Ajazatnamas etc. on the above basis. We are inclined to hold that the respondents were not obliged to re‑open the above matter in 1970 on the basis of the alleged decision taking in the above meeting held on 17‑6‑1970.

6. We are, therefore, of the view that the above petitions do not merit and, therefore, the same are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. .

7. Before parting with the above discussion; we may observe that according to Mr. Syed Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioners in petition No. 502/76 the land measuring 37‑39 acres situated in deh Fikrate, Taluka Ghotki was wrongly included in the above petition and, therefore, the same is to be treated to have not been included in the above petition. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate‑General, has no objection to the above request, we accordingly clarify the same And make it clear that the above land is not covered by the decision of these petitions. We may also observe that in petition No. 499/76 the petitioner had filed a contempt application and because of that the case was not listed today in the cause list. However, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we had sent for the file from the office and have decided the same. Mr. S. Nasiruddin does not wish to press contempt, application as the petitioner in the above petition intends to take appropriate legal proceedings. against the alleged encroachers. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.