Lease of state land

2014 PLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. I99Constitutional petitionLease of State landSale of State land to lesseeVested right, creation ofScope

Petitioner was granted lease of sale land for establishing e fish farm, and thereafter applied for option of sale of said land, made available through a notification issued by the Provincial Board of Revenue

Application of petitioner was not considered yet, and his eligibility to purchase said land was still to be determined; when a subsequent notification was issued which annulled the earlier notification, under which the petitioner had applied for sale of land

Contention of the petitioner was inter alia, that he had acquired a vested right upon filing of option/application under the earlier notification to purchase the said land; which could not be taken away after issuance of subsequent notification

Validity

Matter of petitioner's eligibility to purchase the land had yet to be determined expressly, and without determination of eligibility of the proprietary rights of the petitioner by competent authorities, it could not be said that the petitioner had a mature right for obtaining sale of State land in his favour

Essential conditions for entitlement , in the present case, remained yet to be established, which were eligibility of the petitioner and price determination of said land; therefore such case could not fall within the ambit of a "vested right"

Impugned notification had not defeated or curtailed any existing legal right of the petitioner; and could not be interfered with

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 YLR 2381 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I. R. 10Punjab Government Notification No. 222-2010/117-CLI dated 13-1-2010Punjab Government Notification No.223-2010/118-CLI dated 13-1-2010Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionLease of State landRespondents were given charagaah/State land in 1984 on lease which was extended subsequently but resumed laterDDO (R) directed Tehsildar to put the crops of the resumed land to open auction in 2009Petitioner purchased said crops for Rs.1,85,000Appeals of respondents against order of auction and that of their ejectment (resumption) were dismissed by EDO (R)Board of Revenue accepted ROR filed by respondents and remanded the case to DDO (R)Petitioner's application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. or impleadment was also rejectedDDO (R) on remand extended lease of respondentsPetitioner's appeal against extention order was accepted by Additional Commissioner (Revenue)Member, Board of Revenue accepted revision filed by respondents and restored the extention order of DDO (R)

Petitioner contended that extention could not be granted in lease of land which had already been resumed in terms of Notification No.223-2010/118-CLI dated 13-1-2010; that respondents were not eligible firstly because respondents owned more than four acres of land, secondly, they were not residents of the relevant 'Chak' under Notification No.222-2010/ 117-CLI dated 13-1-2010

Respondents contended that petitioner was not an aggrieved party

Validity

Disputed land could not be put to restricted auction

Petitioner based his right on purchase of crops which were put to auction

Land in question was never leased out to petitioner at any stage which remained on lease with respondents who were still in its possession

Respondents did not own land when the disputed land was leased out to them

Land presently owned by respondents was purchased long after leasing of the disputed land

Petitioner, in circumstances, had no locus standi and was not an "aggrieved person"

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2013 YLR 775 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Notifications No. 223-2010-118-C.L(i)Notification No.224-2010/ 119-C.L(i)Constitutional petitionLease of state landNon-availability of Fard NeelamEffectPetitioners claimed to be lessees of State land and that they were paying dues to the Government regularly

Revenue Department vide notifications and policy issued by the department, directed that the lessees pay unpaid rent along with 15% increase and in case of default, the Collector were authorized to resume the land and eject the lessees

Validity

Admittedly no notices were issued to the lessees and they approached the Collectors themselves, whereafter their applications were dismissed on the ground that the original Fard Neelam was not available in their record and as such they were illegal occupants and their land was included in the auction schedule

Revenue Officer had sought an opinion from the Board of Revenue informing that the record of Fard Neelam was not available in the Revenue Record and the leases may be extended and regularized , which request of the Revenue Officer was still pending

Parties agreed before High Court that the petitioners would file applications with the Revenue Officer for extension of their leases in accordance with the Scheme, and the Revenue Officers will examine such applications of the petitioners keeping in mind that the non-availability of Fard Neelam of the land, was not the fault of the petitioners but it was the duty of the Revenue Department to keep such record safe

Revenue Officer, after hearing the petitioners, would decide the applications within one month in accordance with the law

High Court further directed that the property in possession of the petitioners would not be auctioned or included in the schedule of auction till the disposal of their applications

Constitu-tional petition was disposed of accordingly.