AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this single order, I intend to decide this writ petition No. 5620-2011 as well as writ petitions No. 4797-2011 and 6860-2011 as there is common question of law and facts involved in all the three petitions.
2. The matter in issue is that the petitioners being Lambardars of their respective chaks applied for the grant of land under the Lambardari grant scheme. Admittedly in their respective chaks the land was not available, therefore, they applied for the grant of land in accordance with clause-8(a) added vide Notification No. 1762-2007/1263-C(V), dated 22.10.2007 in the scheme for "Grant of State Land on Lease to the Lambardars". The matter was in progress and it is also admitted position that the land of adjoining chaks was not yet included in the lambardari grant scheme and further the allotment was also not yet made in favour of the petitioners; that the request of the petitioners was refused by the Board of Revenue on the basis that clause-8(a) has been deleted from the scheme.
3. Admittedly in the chaks where the petitioners are Lambardars, the land for lambardari scheme, is not available and through Notification No. 1762-2007/1263-C(V) issued by the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department on .22.10.2007 the Clause-8(a) was added which is as follows:- "in case State land is not available in viilage of Lambardar he may be provided State land in physically joining village/adjoining villages: This clause 8(a) was added in the policy of grant of State land on lease to the "Lambardars" was notified on 17.01.2006, vide Notification No. 81-2006/50-C(V) issued by the Government of the Punjab Colonies Department and admittedly vide Notification No. 918-2011/399-C(V) Clause-8(a) was deleted with immediate effect from 21.05.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that their case was under process at the time of withdrawal of clause 8(a) through Notification dated 21.05.2011 which was to take affect immediately. Learned counsel while relying on the case-law reported as Altaf Hussain and 2 others v. N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology through Vice-Chancellor and another (PLD 1997 Karachi 289) and Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Muhammad Azam Khan and another (1997 CLC 500 (AJ&K)), has argued that as their matter for allotment of land was under process, therefore, withdrawal cannot be implemented retrospectively and, therefore, for adjudication of their rights respondents were bound under the law to decide their matter for allotment of State land of lambardari grant, law applicable at the time of filing of their applications for grant of the land.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General states that the land of adjoining village was not yet reserved for lambardari grant and further that formal allotment was not yet made in favour of the petitioners, therefore, no right can be claimed by the petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have gone through the legal proposition.
7. Admittedly the land was not yet reserved for the lambardari grant and till the time the land is not reserved for specific purpose it cannot be allotted for that purpose and further admittedly the land was not yet even formally allotted to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that their rights be determined in accordance with law existing on the day of filing of applications for grant of land. The case-law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case.
8. As the petitioners' counsel has argued that their rights were protected but I believe that the arguments have been advanced on the assumption that if in case of pending proceedings their rights were protected in the notification whereby clause 8(a) was withdrawn, but it is not the ground reality and factual position.
9. In this view of the matter the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force. In view of above the orders impugned passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be declared without lawful authority, therefore, this petition having no force is dismissed. .