IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---The petitioners herein are aggrieved of the findings arrived at, by a Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, ou 24.08.2009 while dealing with the option submitted by the petitioners for purchase of land measuring 300- Kanals in village Bhallarian Tehsil Chunian District Kasur, he fixed the value of land at current market price plus 50% penalty and in case of refusal to pay the penalty, the petitioners were held liable to pay "Tawan" since the date of possession.
' The back ground of this controversy is that the petitioners submitted an application for the purchase of land noted above to the Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab on 10.01.2004. After due process, it was reported from the concerned Revenue Department of District Kasur that land measuring 620-Kanals 2-Marlas was allotted to Mst. Noor Bahri, who sold the same to Messrs Burhan Ali etc. Later on the land stood cancelled from the name of -original allottee and was resumed in favour of the state. Messrs Burhan Ali, etc. Referred above, applied to the then Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab for the purchase of land in question which request was allowed on the payment of average market price vide letter dated 27.09.1984. The present petitioners challenged the said order of Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab before this Court through W.P.No.67-R/1988 which was disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at in between the parties whereby the present petitioners and M/s Burhan Ali, etc. Were agreed to the arrangement that the land measuring 328- Kanals 2-Marlas will be purchased by Messrs Burhan Ali, etc. Whereas the remaining land viz 300-Kanals will be purchased by the present petitioners on the market price. By means of order dated 26.03.1991 passed in W.P. No.67- R/1988 on the basis of above settlement, the same was disposed of. It was specifically clarified that the Board of Revenue was not a party to the aforesaid settlement, therefore, obviously the inferest of the Board of Revenue, if any, shall not be affected by the said arrangement.
' A formal petition was, however, moved by the present petitioners for purchase of the land measuring 300-Kanals on 10.01.2004 and as agreed by the petitioners on 26.03.1991 before this Court in W.P.No.67-R/1988, it was ordered by the Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab to receive the price of land from the petitioners at current market price.
2. The learned counsel for petitioners, by making particular reference to the case titled Abdul Majid v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1978 Lahore 912) and two letters one of dated 20.11.1974 and other one of dated 27.05.1975 issued in pursuance of proviso to Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 whereby a decision was conveyed to the effect that all allotted rural agricultural evacuee land shall be offered for sale to the persons, who have been in actual cultivating possession thereof for a period of at least four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 up to the extent of subsisting holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 i.e. 121/2 acres, in case any other land is held by such occupant on the basis of an independent right, such holding shall be taken into account for determining the maximum limit. It was further decided that the price of the land shall be determined at the rate of Rs.10/- per P.I.U. Of the land to be purchased. The matter was further clarified by the authorities through memo dated 27.05.1975 as to the disposal of all unallotted land and on reconsideration it was decided that the land will henceforth be disposed of at the rate of Rs.100/- per P.I.U. Instead of Rs.10/- per P.I.U. As decided through memo dated 20.11.1974. Under the first letter the occupants were required to exercise their option by 31.12.1974. The time, however, was extended for exercising the option by such occupants up to 30.11.1976. However, while extending the time limit, it was reasserted that the price of the land shall be determined at the rate of Rs.100/- per P.I.U. In view of letter of 1975 and therefore, learned counsel has argued that at the most the petitioners can be charged towards price of the land at the rate of Rs.100/- per P.I.U. (Produce Index Unit) and as such, the demand as to the price of the land according to the current market value is neither legal nor authorized.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondents has argued that the petitioners themselves have agreed to purchase the land on the payment of market price on 26.03.1991 when they entered into a settlement in W.P. No,67-R/1988. He clarified the position that the rate of Rs,10/- per P.I.U. were fixed for the persons, who applied by exercising their option to purchase the state land before 31.12.1974 or before the issuance of second letter dated 27.05.1975. The petitioners, according to learned counsel for respondents have applied for the purchase of land on 10.01.2004, therefore, they are not entitled to claim any benefit of both these letters of 1974 and 1975 whereby the price of land was fixed either Rs,10/- per P.I.U. and Rs,100/- per P.I.U.
' The learned counsel for respondents has further referred a letter dated 26.12.2002 which is reproduced herein below:-- "No,1498-1998-2223-RL(A)I, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Farid Kot House, Lahore. Dated the 26th Dec. 2002.
From The Board of Revenue, Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing.
To All the Executive District Officer (Revenue) in the Punjab.
All the district Officer (Revenue) in the Punjab Subject: SCHEME FOR DISPOSAL OF UNALLOTEDRURAL AGRICULTU--AL LAND.
Memorandum: In continuation of this office Memo. No, 1407-98/3594/RL(A)I, dated 02.12.1998, on the subjected cited above.
2. According to Scheme for Disposal of Un-allotted, Un-occupied,Occupied Evacuee Rural Agricultural Land, the occupants were required to submit their option for purchase of land @ Rs,100/ P.I Us by 31.01.1999.
3. The Jammu and Kashmir temporary allottees of evacuee land were also allowed to get proprietary rights of the temporary allotted land on payment of Rs,100/- per P.I. Unit. The Government have decided to continue it till further ordeRs, ' It has been decided that the cases of other occupants who had given option by 31.01.1999 for purchase of land at the rate of Rs,100/- per produce index unit be decided accordingly. Such persons who apply for purchase after 31.01.1999 for them Rs, 750/- per produce index unit will be the price and they can exercise option by 30.06.2003. The Government has accordingly fixed the date of submitting option by the occupants as 30.06.2003.
5. You are, therefore, requested to please proceed in the matter accordingly and make vide publicity in the press and through other media. The necessary amendment in the scheme is being issued separately.
Sd/ SECRETARY ( SETT. & REHB.) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, FARID KOT HOUSE, LAHORE."
' The above letter provides that the occupants, who had given option by 31.01.1999 for the purchase of land were to be charged @ Rs,100/- per produce index unit, but who apply for purchase thereafter they will be charged @ Rs,750/- per P.I.U. and even for that levy, the cut of date was fixed as 30.06.2003.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The date of making application by the present petitioners for purchase of land measuring 300- Kanals has been noted in the impugned order announced on 24.08.2009 as 10.01.2004 and to that extent, the impugned order has never been challenged by the petitioneRs, In paragraph-4 of this writ petition, the date of submission of application originally typed, has intentionally been erased and from whole of the memo of petition, the date of submission of application for purchase of land has no where been borne out. I take this as an intentional attempt to conceal the fact from this Court and to get benefit of what, to which the petitioners are not entitled, in fact.
6. The reference of the learned counsel for petitioners to case of Abdul Majid supra, is not relevant for the present petitioners as in the said reported matter, the petitioner therein moved an application within target time as was fixed through letters dated 20.11.1974 and 27.05.1975.
' Paragraph 4 of the said reported citation is being reproduce.:ed herein below for convenience to understand the point raised therein and the issue involved in the present case: "It will, therefore, be seen that the question that will arise for decision in all these cases will be whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase the excess land at the rate of Rs,10 per P.I.U. as decided by the first letter dated 20.11.1974 or that they should be charged at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I.U. on the basis of the decision taken vide letter dated 27.05.1975. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had applied exercising their option before 31.12.1974 as provided in the first letter dated 20.11.1974 and through no fault of theirs if the cases arc not finalized by the competent authority till such time the second letter dated 27.05.1975 was issued enhancing the price from Rs,10 to Rs,100 per they are entitled to the benefit under the first letter. He has referred to Mian Irshad Ali v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Islamabad and others (1). However the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has frankly conceded that the persons, who had not exercised their option before the issuance of the second letter dated 27.05.1975 cannot claim benefit of the first letter. The learned Advocate appearing for the Department has, however, argued that the right to purchase the excess land at a particular rate is not a vested right and, therefore, if for any reason, the cases could not be finalized before the second letter dated 27.05.1975 was issued by which the price was enhanced from Rs,10 to Rs,100 per P.I.U. the occupant shall have to pay the price at the revised rate. " 'The price fixed through letter dated 26.12.2002 still will not be applicable for the petitioners, In order to get benefit of such letter, the petitioners had to apply for purchase of land before 30.06.2003. The petitioners may be in possession of the land in question since 1972 as pleaded by them but the date of possession is not at all relevant to determine the market price of the land rather it is a date of submission of application intimating the intention to exercise option for the purchase of the land.
Even otherwise, the petitioners are estopped by their conduct to .claim fixation the price of land other than the market price, for, they themselves have agreed to purchase the land in question by making payment at market price before this Court on 26.03.1991 as referred herein above and compromise deed (Mark-C1) was signed or thumb marked by all the petitioners which is available in the record of W.P.No,67- R/1988.
7.For what has been discussed above, this Court has come to irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned herein passed by the Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V1/Chief Settlement Commissioner in Board of Revenue Government of Punjab announced on 24.08.2009 and finding no force in this petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.
8.A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner in Board of Revenue, Government of the Punjab with a direction to work out the current market price of the land which the petitioners intend to purchase and such worked out amount will be deposited by the petitiones Rs, The necessary exercise be completed by the Board of Revenue within 45-days after receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The imposition of penalty or in case of non-payment of the same, the payment of "Tawan" will be reconsidered by the learned Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab and the said issue will be decided in accordance with law within same stipulated period as noted herein above.