' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that land in question was allotted to the petitioner on 22-5-1971 on 15 years lease scheme. The Deputy Commissioner vide order, dated 8-8- 1982, considered the case of the petitioner for the grant of proprietary rights and held him to be entitled. Accordingly petitioner was called upon to pay the instalment. On failure of the petitioner vide order, dated 9-2-1987, he was allowed two month's time with some fine to clear all the arrears.
The petitioner failed to deposit the instalment and on 11-4-1987 he applied to the Colony Assistant for the extension of time. The Colony Assistant vide order, dated 22-4-1987 on the ground that the instalments have not been paid, directed the resumption of the land of the petitioner. This order was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 28-4-1987.
2. Instead of challenging this order before the Board of Revenue the petitioner on 9-5-1987 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for extension of time, which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of instalments within one month. Except for one instalment the rest of the arrears were however paid by the petitioner in compliance with the said order. In the meanwhile, Conveyance Deed was also prepared for its registration in favour of the petitioner but somebody from the village filed a compliant against the petitioner, whereupon, the Deputy Commissioner on 17-5-1984 referred the matter to Commissioner and requested to review the order, dated 28-4-1987. This reference was answered by the Commissioner in negative vide order, dated 8-8-1995 keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year, 1995, petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging order, dated 28-4-1987 passed by the Additional Commissioner, the same was dismissed by the learned Member Board of Revenue vide order, dated 10-1-1996 on the ground that the revision is barred by time. This order was sought by the petitioner to be reviewed by the Board through a petition filed in the year, 2000 which also stands dismissed vide order, dated 22-5-2003. All these orders are being assailed through the instant constitutional petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he isassociated with the land in question for the last about 35 years and is in actual physical possession; that the petitioner has re- shaped the land in question into an ideal piece of land by spending a huge amount from hispocket; that the petitioner has deposited all the arrears of the State and nothing is outstanding against him; that the defaults, if any during this period committed by the petitioner were curable defaults and at the most some penalties could have been imposed which were actually imposed and paid by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Contends that the land in question was resumed vide order, dated 22-4-1987. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide order, dated 28-4-1987. Thereafter, instead of challenging the said order before the Board of Revenue the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner.On 9-5-1987 seeking extension of time, without disclosing the dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Commissioner and obtained extension of time one month. It is thus contended that the petitioner by playing fraud had obtained extension from Deputy Commissioner.
Since the conduct of the petitioner is unfair, therefore, he is not entitled to discretionary relief by this Court. It is further submitted that Commissioner had also commented upon the conduct of the petitioner while refusing on 8-8-1995 the reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner for review of order, dated 28-4-1997.
5. As a right of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 22-4-1987 was dismissed in limine and the fact of its dismissal was not conveyed by petitioners counsel to the petitioner, therefore, since he was not having any knowledge of its dismissal, therefore, he had innocently filed application before the Deputy Commissioner on 9-5-1987 for extension of time and faithfully complied with the order.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties on 4-7-2005. I directed the learned Law Officer to ensure the presence a responsible officer who is in a position to make a positive statement with respect to the status of the land in question, Mr. Muhammad Khalid Zauq DDOR PPS is present in Court he states that the petitioner is associated with the land in dispute for the last about 30/35 years. The said land presently is not required for any purpose. Even if, the said land is resumed from the petitioner, the same would be leased out to some other person for cultivation as per the on going policy.
7. Keeping in view the above statement although the conduct of the petitioner was not fair enough to exercise the discretion by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction but still in view of the fact that he is associated with the land in dispute for the last more than three decades and also for the reason that land was not required by the State for any public purpose for the time being, he may be allowed to continue inpossession as lessee in terms of the existing policy. The DDOR present in Court is directed to calculate the entire outstanding amount and penalties leviable on the petitioner and the amount deposited by him towards the said lease money and penalties and also sale consideration deposited by him. If anything is still outstanding against him, the same shall be recovered from him and if he has deposited more than the said amount, the same may be refunded to him or adjusted in future lease. The petitioner shall however will be at liberty to file fresh application for the grant of PRs as and when any scheme is enforced. With this observation this petition stands disposed of.