' This order will dispose of two writ petitions, registered as Writ Petitions Nos. 744 of 1981 and 1124 of 1975.
2. In Writ Petition No, 1124 of 1975 there are 148 petitioneRs, They are in possession of different parcels of land belonging to the Provincial Government since before partition as pattadars on annual basis. Their. Pat tas have been continuously renewed every year. Formerly they were' paying 400% of the produce to the Government by way of rent. Now the Government has demanded rent under the new pattas at the rate of 50% of the produce. The petitioners have challenged the enhancement of rent on the ground that it is in violation of paragraph 25 of Martial: Law Regulation 115.
3.' The Writ Petition No, 744 of 1981 has been filed by two of the petitioners in the other petition. Apart from again challenging the legality of the increase in rent it has also been prayed in this writ petition that the Government should be forbidden from seeking new pattas every . Year as it militates against the protection given to the tenants by paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115.
4. In Writ Petition No, 1124 of 1975 the petitioners alleged that they land held by them was formerly with the British Cotton Ginners" Association and later with the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation and that they were tenants under these two entities. The Government denied this assertion in its written statement and claimed that it had always directly arranged for its cultivation. The written statement was filed as far back as 1976 and the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of their assertion. I would, therefore reject the assertion made by the petitioners in this regard as unfounded.
5. There is no basis in law for the claim of the petitioners that they are liable to pay rent only at the rate of.40% of the produce or that the Government is incompetent to enhance the rent. No doubt section 15-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act does fix the maximum rent payable, by a tenant at 40% of the produce but by virtue of subsection (4) of the same section this limit does not apply to the case of a tenant holding land under the Provincial or the Central Government. The provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115 do not prescribe the rate of rent which a landlord may lawfully demand from a tenant; for that reason reference to the provisions of the said Regulation is entirely irrelevant. In the absence of any statutory provision governing the fixation of rent the question of settlement of rent would appear to be a matter for the parties to decide/ for themselves by mutual agreement. As already stated the petitioners are pattadars on year to year basis. 1 can see no illegality in the Government's demand, while entering into new lease agreements or pattas, that it should be paid rent on the basis of 50% of the produce.
6. As regards the prayer of the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 744 of 1981 that they should be treated as tenants and granted the protection of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 I have a judgment of the Division Bench before me in Writ Petition No, 980 of 1976. In this case the Division Bench held that the provisions of paragraph 25 were not applicable to tenants of Government land. This decision is binding on me. I would accordingly reject this prayer also.
7. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in these writ petitions which I hereby dismiss with costs.