CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other contends that area measuring 822 kanals was leased out to the petitioner in Chak No. 34/2-R for animal breeding in the colony area in square Nos. 24, 25, 26, 33, 34 and 69. He further contends that after the demised of petitioners husband, the petitioner planted mango garden on five acres of land and also built a house on the area of 16 kanals', 11 marlas, constructed stables, servant quarter and installed three tube-wells and also grazing paddock and dry paddock, It is further contended that a number of mules and mares are present in the stable and the petitioner have been showing satisfactory result of this tenancy for the last more then fifty years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that her father-in- law Nawab Sir Mehr Shah and her husband Syed Maqbool Shah also served the respondent and had given good result but despite of petitioner's extra-ordinary performance, vide letter No. 25.12.2008, District Remout Officer required the petitioner to surrender 2 squares of stud land in the light of SOP in Vogue and asked to give willingness certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Board of Revenue through memo, dated 8.3.2010 conveyed to D.O.R., Okara that Ministry of Defence is not inclined to renew the lease of the petitioner for another ten years. Learned counsel further contends that it was clearly stated in' the letter dated 25.12.2008 that if the petitioner gives willingness certificate she would be given said land on animal breeding condition to the extent of two squares and it was also repeated in the letter No. 5804/1389/REM/C, dated 24.9.2009 that she is entitled for fresh grant as she has achieved satisfactory purchasing results and thus is qualified for fresh grant as provided in the scale of allotment as per revise policy to civilians the scale of allotment has been reduced to two square, if the petitioner accepts same she should surrender two squares of land. The petitioner executed affidavit and retained land square Nos. 26, 69, 33, 25 measuring 422 Kanals, 5 marlas and surrendered square Nos. 24, 25, 34 measuring 400 kanals. The surrender land has already allotted to a serving Brigadier in voilation of law. When on 8.3.2010, the Board of Revenue abruptly conveyed to D.O.R., Okara, that Ministry of Defence, Army wing is not inclined to re-allot the said land for another ten years, It is further contended that the petitioner has spent lacs of rupees on the said land but the respondents cannot refuse to reallot the same for another ten years as was expressly agreed and this refusal is illegal, unlawful and against the principles of equity, fair play as neither any notice was given nor the petitioner was heard before passing order. Moreover, distinction having been made between the civilian and others is discriminatory, which is against the law, policy and contravenes the Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution and she is entitled to be treated as per as the petitioner and her family had given marvelous results and has given a big number of mules to the respondents and refusal to the renew lease to the civilians is mala fide and bad in law.
The petitioner approached the respondents for the renewal of tenancy but they are reluctant to renew the same without any reasonable cause, It is also contended that the conduct and attitude of the respondents in declining to re-allot or given fresh allotment for sole reason of being a civilian is violative of Constitution and the same is illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and thus respondents have grossly infringed the rights of the petitioner, It is further contended that as observations made in. Letter dated 23.1.2009 about fresh allotment and re-allotment to civilians and order of Member Board of Revenue dated 8.3.2010 addressed to D.O.R., Okara may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and of no legal consequence and same may kindly be declared to be fanciful, whimsical, mala fide, arbitrary and an appropriate order may kindly be issued in this behalf and the petitioner may be granted relief for which she is legally entitled as the same is violative of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution.
2. Arguments heard, record perused.
3. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has more than one alternative remedies before the higher revenue authorities under the provision of law. In addition to these remedies, there is an arbitration clause provided in the lease deed that in case' of any difference or dispute between the parties, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrators for decision. Arbitration clause is reproduced as under:- "Arbitration: In the event of a difference or dispute arising between Government and tenant as to any of the conditions of the tenancy or as to any matter or thing in any way connected herewith including a difference or dispute as to- the interpretation of any term or conation and as to whether the lease has been duly terminated and the rights and obligations, from such termination,-such difference Or dispute shall be referred for arbitration to the Commissioner of the Division concerned whose award shall be final and conclusive between Government and the tenant and where such award directs the payment of any sum of money or delivery of any property by one party to the other no money or property shall be recoverable in excess of the money or property so awarded."
4. . In the light of more than one alternate remedies including the provision of-arbitration, writ petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, in case reported as Pir Sabir Shah v. Shah Muhammad khan PLD 1995 Supreme Court 66, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the tendency to file Constitutional petition without exhausting the remedies is not warranted.
5. However, in the; interest of justice and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances' of this case when the petitioner claims that she has spent millions of rupees on the development and improvements of suit land, petitioner is directed to approach the competent forum. However, the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the suit land for four weeks from today to enable the petitioner to avail alternate remedies.
6. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.