CH. IJAZ AHMAD, ACTING C.J.--- The brief facts out of When the present writ petition arises are that the land in question is State land which is in occupation of petitioner who subsequently submitted an application to secure the `land in question on lease which was accepted by the Board of Revenue vide memo. Dated 22.7.1989 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per annum w.e.f. 22.6.1989 The petitioner also submitted an application to purchase the land in question through private treaty in terms of circular dated 12.10.1993. The competent authority has already constituted District Price Assessm ent Committee under Notification dated 20.2.1985. The said committee assessed the price of the and in question at Rs. 24,500/- per kanal. The sale of the land in question was recommended in favour of the, petitioner at Rs. 24,500/- per kanal plus 10% surcharge and 15% penalty on account of unauthorized occupation which was sent to the Board of Revenue, The Board of Revenue I.R directed vide memo. Dated 13.9.1995 that the market price be got re-assessed through District Price Assessm ent Committee under the existing policy instructions contained in Notification dated 20.2.1985. In obedience of aforesaid memo. Of Board of Revenue the case was thereafter placed before the District Price Assessm ent Committee for reassessment of market price. The committee assessed the market price at Rs. 3;000/- per marla i.e. Rs. 180,000/- per site of 3 kanals which was intimated vide memo. Dated 5.5.1996 of the Deputy Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue. The sale was not approved by the Provincial Committee in its meeting held on 24.5.1999 which was conveyed to the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy as the policy pertains to the illegal occupation whereas the petitioner is lessee over the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved filed W.P. No. 12358/2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2003 on the ground that petition has become infructuous in view of decision of the respondents passed on 18.11.2000 with the observation that petitioner is well within his right to challenge the cancellation order in separate proceedings before competent forum/competent Court. The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of the respondents dated 18.11.2000 through this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed W.P. No. 16088/95 qua the land in question with regard to re-assessment of the price of the land by the respondents which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.12.1997 in the following terms:- "In this view of the matter this writ petition is premature. The same is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to re-assess the value expeditiously and intimate the petitioner."
He further submits that this order was not challenged by the respondents before any higher forum.
Therefore, this order is final between the parties. He further submits that Deputy Commissioner has filed parawise comments in W.P. No. 16088/95 wherein in reply of prayer clause the Deputy Commissioner has taken the following stand:- "In view of the facts enumerated above the land in question can be sold to the petitioner at the price to be approved by the Government/Board of Revenue."
He further urges that order dated 1.12.1997 in the said 'Constitutional petition read with reply of prayer clause by the Deputy Commissioner did not allow the respondents to pass the impugned order. He further submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered under the policy of the respondents. He further submits that respondents have not taken any stand contrary to this in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to raise this plea and pass the impugned order on the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver. He further submits that case was recommended by the lower staff and approved by . The higher authorities but subsequently Provincial Committee has rejected the same in its meeting held on 24.5.1999 without issuing any notice to the petitioner as is evident from Annexure-Z attached with the Constitutional petition at page-56. He further submits that vested right has accrued to the petitioner in terms of previous orders of the Board of Revenue in which the controversy between the parties was with regard to assessm ent of the price of the land in question. He further submits that respondents have admitted all the facts in the report and parawise comments. Therefore, impugned order is without lawful authority.
3. Learned Law Officer submits that impugned order is valid as the competent authority has all the right to consider the case whether the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the policy or not. The policy is with regard to illegal occupation of State land by the occupants whereas the petitioner is lessee of the land in question. He further submits that in the earlier round of litigation it was not noted by any authority .With regard to the status of the petitioner to find out whether the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the policy of the respondents or not. Therefore, this was not issue in question in the earlier round of litigation and judgment of this Court dated 1.2.1997 does not debar the respondents to cancel the sale in question. He further submits that impugned order is valid.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in the present case in view of the earlier orders of the Board of Revenue and principle of res judicata in view of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation while disposing of earlier writ petition vide order dated 1.2.1997. He further submits that impugned order is not in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon A. Razzaq & Co. Vs. Government of Pakistan (PLJ 2000 Lah. 52).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that the District Price Committee has recommended the case of the petitioner to the Board of Revenue which was approved by the Board of Revenue and send back to the District Price Committee to re-assess the price of the land in question. Thereafter the District Price Committee. Again submitted its recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has accrued vested right as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Army Welfare Sugar Mills' case (1992 SCMR 1652). Therefore, the respondent has to pass the impugned order after issuing notice to the petitioner and the impugned order is hit by the principle of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention here that impugned order as well as minutes of meeting of the Provincial Committee did not furnish sufficient reason in support of the decision of the respondents against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that nobody shall be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as the law laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif Qureshi's case (PLD 1994 Lah.
3). After addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the cases of the citizens with reasons within reasonable time. As the impugned order does not contain any reason, therefore, it is not in consonance with the mandate of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act which is procedural in nature, therefore, it has retrospective effect as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zain Yar Khan's case (1998 SCMR 2419). The Honourable Supreme Court has reaffirmed the said view while interpreting Section 24-A, General Clauses Act in M/s. Airport Support Services (1998 SCMR 2268).
In view ,of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab on 5.5.2005 who is directed tb decide the case afresh with reasons preferably within 3 months after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person who would be aggrieved by his order either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to decide the same in terms of aforesaid direction preferably within 3 months. He is further directed to submit report to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. Office is directed to provide a copy of this order to Mr. M. Hanif Khattana, Addl. A.G. For onward transmission to the Secretary Colonies, Board . Of Revenue, Punjab for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of . /Case Remanded.