'.ASAD MUNIR, J.---Facts in brief are that respondent No,1 allotted on lease to the petitioner's father, Lt. Col. (Retd) Muhammad Abbas Khan Durrani, stud land, measuring 405 kanals 2 marlas in Square No, 2833, 34 of Chak No, 30/2/R Tehsil and District Okara. The said lease was initially granted in the year 1956 for a period of ten years in accordance with the Animal Breading Conditions issued under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The lease in favour of the petitioner's father was renewed/extended until Rabi 2007. However, the petitioner's father died on 29-11-2001 whereafter the petitioner applied for allotment of the un-expired portion of the lease with effect from 29-11-2001 to Rabi 2007. This was not acceded to and a letter for resumption of the land was issued on 4-3-2003 whereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,5606 of 2003 which was withdrawn as allotment was extended from 29-11-2001 to Rabi 2007 by means of GHQ QMC Branch, Rawalpindi. After the expiry of the lease in 2007, the petitioner was declined renewal of the lease and vide Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi's letter dated 17-12-2007, the land was allotted on a 10-year lease to Brig. (Retd.) Aslam Paunwar Khan who is stated to have been delivered possession of the land 6-5-2008 after its resumption from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit and obtained a status quo order which remained in force till 5-12- 2007. Through this writ petition, filed on 8-5-2008, the refusal of the respondents to grant renewal of the lease to the petitioner has been called into question.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the new policy cannot be retrospectively applied to deny the petitioner the continuation of lease and that in any case vide GHQ's letter of April, 2001, the petitioner was not only allowed lease of the unexpired portion of the lease but has also become entitled to the renewal of the lease on the basis of his horse breeding performance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the performance of the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory as his case for renewal of the lease was recommended.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents oppose the writ petition by relying on the new policy, introduced by GHQ vide Letter No, 5804/268/Rem/C dated 27-6-2006, to the effect that on the death of a lessee only his widow is entitled to the extension of the lease while his children have been excluded from the benefit as was the case before the change in policy.
Accordingly, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has no right or entitlement in view of the current policy which came into effect from 27-6-2006. It is further contended that the petitioner in any case has no vested right to the renewal or extension of the lease of State land as it falls within the absolute discretion of the respondents. It is also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the order impugned is open to appeal/revision under sections 161 and 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
3A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record.
4. There is no force in the contention that the new allotment policy, introduced vide GHQ's letter dated 27-6-2006, has no retrospective effect and is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
There is no question of the new policy being retrospectively applied to the petitioner as the case of the petitioner for renewal of the lease was considered in 2007 in the light of the policy already introduced on 27-6-2006 whereby a legal heir other than widow was excluded from the benefit of renewal of lease. On the death of his father in 2001, the petitioner was granted the lease of the unexpired portion of his father's lease for being a legal heir as he was eligible under the policy then in vogue which placed no embargo on the children of the deceased lessee.
5. The case of the petitioner is also based on GHQ's letter dated April, 2011 (the exact date is not legible), whereby the unexpired lease period until Rabi 2007 was approved in favour of the petitioner as an heir of his father with the addition that "the renewal of the lease will be granted on his performance as per rules". Even though the petitioner has been refused the renewal of lease on the ground that he is not so entitled because of the new policy, it needs to be examined if the petitioner has a right to obtain renewal of the lease without any reference to the new policy. This question of renewal of lease has not arisen for the first time and one can seek guidance from the case-law available on the question. A case in point is Muhammad Sultan versus Government of the Pakistan through Secretary Defense, Rawalpindi and 4 others (2003 YLR 2713), wherein a somewhat similar question arose as an heir sought renewal of the stud lease allotted to his late father after he was granted lease for the unexpired period of his late father's lease. While rejecting the renewal of the lease, it was held as under:-- "It was a lease for a fixed term. Clause 3(2) of the said Conditions also provides that the leases are for a fixed period, therefore, on the expiry of the lease period, the tenancy granted to the petitioner stood determined, as provided in clause 50(a) of the said Conditions, which govern the petitioner's tenancy/lease and the land automatically reverted back to the State. The Board of Revenue, Punjab/Competent Authority, therefore, vide its impugned Letter No, 5583-98/3971-CL.V, dated 28- 12-1998, correctly issued instructions to the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Collector for necessary action. The impugned orders of determination of lease and the resumption of the stud land do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. The State lands are granted by the Government for the purposes of animal breeding in the colony areas of the Province of Punjab, under clause I of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983 and the said clause provides that no person shall be entitled, as of right, to receive a grant and Government shall have absolute discretion in the selection of tenancy. This shows that the question as to the selection of suitable candidate for the allotment of tenancy was purely internal with the Government and the petitioner was not, as of right, entitled to lay claim to the allotment. He had no right to remain in possession of the stud land after the expiry of the lease and the same could be resumed in accordance with law."
6. In another case titled Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Member (Colonies) BOR, Pun jab and others (1998 SCM R 1188), the reduction of leased land under Animal Breeding Scheme was questioned but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "In this view of the matter the above contention is devoid of any force as the petitioners could not have claimed renewal of the lease as a matter of right. The corollary of the above conclusion is that the Government was free to offer renewal for a lesser area than what was covered in the expired lease. The rationale for reducing ceiling of the area for allotment seems to be that the Government wishes to accommodate more retired Army personnel under the above Scheme."
7. It will also be a benefit to refer to Lt. Col. (Retd.) M. Zahoor- ul-Haq versus Quarter Master General and others (1994 CLC 2449) wherein also the grantees of the leases as well as their heirs felt aggrieved as the size of their leased land was reduced. While discussing the import and effect of Statement of Conditions dated 22-9-1970, which are similar iii terms to the Statement of Conditions dated 9-8-1983, the learned Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-- "This may prominently be emphasized that the Government was not under any obligation to grant the lease to the successor of the deceased tenant. In the same manner it was stated in Condition 51(i) that Government reserved absolute right regarding future renewal and may not renew the lease without assigning any reason for which no prior notice was required to be given".
8. It, thus, appears that the petitioner has no right to seek the renewal of the lease even if his performance as a horse breeder is assumed to be satisfactory. The April, 2001 letter, issued by GHQ, wherein there is reference to the extension on the basis of performance cannot be construed to confer a right on the petitioner to claim renewal of the lease. The case of the petitioner is governed by Notification No,4292-83/2537-CL-1 dated 9-8-1983, issued under section 10 of the section 10 of the Colonization Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, which contains a Statement of Conditions for the grant of state land under the Animal Breeding Scheme. This Statement of Conditions has to be read into and is part of every animal breeding lease. Clause 1 of the Statement of Conditions through its proviso makes it clear that "no person shall be entitled as of right to receive a grant and Government shall have absolute discretion in the selection of tenancies while Clause 3(2) ibid provides that "the tenancy shall be for a fixed period and shall be non-renewable". Para. 50 of the Statement of Conditions, being also relevant, is reproduced below:-- "50. Disposal of land on death of tenant.---(1) If the tenant dies during the period of tenancy the land shall revert to Government and may be granted to any one of his heirs considered to be fully capable of satisfactorily carrying out the conditions of the grant in all respect for the unexpired period of the lease or to some other tenant subject to such compensation to be paid to the estate of the deceased as may be determined by Government on the recommendations of Ministry of Defense Government of Pakistan.
(2) Government shall in no case be under any obligation to grant the tenancy to the successors of the deceased tenant".
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Government has the absolute discretion not to extend or renew the lease to the existing lessee and resume and allot the land to someone else. The rationale of the new policy cannot be questioned as it aims to extend the benefit of the state bounty to those who have not had the good fortune to receive it in the past.
10. Accordingly, I see no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.