ASIM HAFEEZ, J.---This order shall decide instant Constitutional petition and Constitutional petition bearing W.P.
No.7232 of 2018, which are against order of 26.07.2012, passed by the Member Board of Revenue. Though Constitutional petition bearing W .P. No.18120 of 2018 is heard along but same is decided through separate order .
2. Narration of Facts: Briefly the facts essential for adjudication of these petitions, are that in terms of order dated 21.11.1978 land, as described in the impugned order , was allotted on 5-years lease -- from Kharif 1978 to Rabi 1983 to the petitioners. Petitioners claim ed entitlement to more land and impugned order of allotment before Commissioner Multan, who remanded the matter . Assistant Commissioner / Collec tor, thereafter , resumed the land and cancelled the lease of petitioner and others vide order dated 23.08.1982. The reason for resumption and cancellation was the instructions of Boar d of Revenue, conveyed vide letter dated 06.06.1981, in terms whereof land in question was reserved for Islamabad Oustees Scheme. Predecessor of the petitioner , along others, approached Civil Court and sought declaration, which suit was dismissed on 16.10.1988; appeal was also dismissed on 20.07.1994 - these facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in the petition but revealed by the respondents Nos.3 to 8 while filing written reply , copies of decisions attached. Thereafter , petitioner and 3 others filed revision petitions in the year 1994 against order of resumption / cancellation of 23.08.1982, which revision petitions were allowed on 20.07.1995. Deputy Commissioner Lodhran vide letter dated 10.10.1995 sought review of order dated 20.07.1995, and said review petition along others were allowed vide order dated 06.06.1998.
Aggrieved, petitioners challenged said order before this Court through W.P. No.57 71 of 1998, which was allowed on 24.04.2006 and order of 06,06.1998 was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh. Thereafter , Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue allowed Review Petition No.28/1997 titled "State through Deputy Commissioner Lodhran v. Saifal, etc." - and recalled order dated 20.07.1995. And Review Petition No.202/2006 titled "Fait Buksh v. Muhammad Ashraf etc." - was also rejected. Hence, instant Constitutional petition. The petitioners in W.P. No.7232 of 2018, have sought review of the order dated 26.07.2012 which second review petition, statedly , was withdrawn on 12.1 1.2018.
SUBMISSIONS:
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both petitions contends that order dated 24.04.2006 passed in W.P.
No.5771 of 1998 was not adhered to while deciding review petitions. It is emphas ized that despite clear direction legal counsels for the parties were not heard. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of "Masood Rahim and 7 others v. Abdul Majeed and 9 others" (2009 MLD 106). Learned counsel averred that petitioners are in possession for last 50 years and effected improvements at the land - which was barren and made cultivable. Adds that vide order dated 20.07.1995 the allotment in favour of the petitioners was affirmed, lease was extended till Rabi 1995, and same were held entitled to claim proprietary rights in the land in terms of policy of 19.03.1995, Further submits that limitation was no hurdle to set-aside order of 23.08.1982 as suo-motu powers can be exercised by revisional forum. Submits that respondents Nos.3 to 8 have no right to oppose or object to the claim of the petitioners, as said respondents were subsequent purchasers from one allottee of Islamabad Oustees Scheme - Mst. Noor Bakht who was guilty of double allotment and her allotment is already under challenge, which fact was evident from the order impugned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for' respondents Nos.3 to 8 supported the orders impugned, who contends that petitioners have no right, whatsoever , to claim any right/interest in the land when their allotment, by way of lease was only for five years and otherwise ended in the year 1983. Adds that land was validly reserved for Islamabad Oustees Scheme. Learned counsel controverted submission that parties were not heard through counsels before Member Board of Revenue, who referre d to power of attorney signed by the petitioners in favour of one Mr. Shahnawaz Khan Advocate, who addressed the forum and also submitted written submissions.
5. Learned law officer submits that the petitioners have no right to claim entitlement qua land in question, when their lease stood expired, whereafter their status was of illegal occupants, enriching themselves at the expense of the State.
OPINION OF THE COUR T
6. After hearing the submissions and perusal of record, it is observed that there is no dispute qua the fact that 'Temporary Cultivation Tenancy' ('TCL') granted to the petitioners was for :5 years, i.e., till Rabi 1983, And no extension or renewal of lease order was issued under section 10(3) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 ('Act') thereafter . Petitioners have claimed benefit of order of 20.07.1995 to claim extension in the lease period and alleged entitlement to prospective proprietary rights in the property . Notwithstanding aforesaid facts, the real controversy is that whether the order of 20.07.1995 is sustainable in law. The order passed by the Member (Colonies) on 20.07.1995 proceeded on the assumption that petitioners were allottees of the land in dispute - which assumption was contrary to the record. Lease was for the period of 5 years and same was cancelled in the year 1982 - reason being the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue contained in the letter dated 06.06.1981 - in lieu of reservation of land, for Islamabad Oustees Scheme, which requirement for the purposes of permanent allotment was in accordance with the terms and conditio ns of TCL and the petitioners - claiming grant under TCL - were obligated to offer peaceful surrender of land. There is no cavil to the principle that use of land under TCL was subject to the terms and conditions prescribed for TCL and the allotment of the petitioners too was ubject to such terms and conditions. No illegality or jurisdictional defect has been identified qua act of reservation of land for the above-n oted purpose. The order dated 20.07.1995, in view of the circumstances and allotments made between the years 1982 to 1994 [when the petitioners were trying to reinforce their alleged rights before the courts of general jurisdiction], is illegal and unwarranted. It is evident that unholy haste was shown in extending lease till Rabi 1995 with a stroke of pen when land in question was already allotted in accordance with the Scheme, introduced and implemented in terms of section 10 of the Act. The question of limitation was also relevant are fairly appreciated while passing order dated 26.07.2012. There was no occasion or basis for the exercise of Suo-Motu powers, when lease stood cancelled/ expired and issue was raised after more than 12 years, which critical facts were ignored while passing order of 20.07.1995.
7. The question of legal entitlement of the petitioners is also relevant. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated, no legally enforceable right is vested in the petitioner , in whose favour no valid allotment or lawful grant survived after 1982. The petitioners were required to make improvements for the purposes of cultivation, which was an integral part of the terms of grant. Member (Colonies) while passing order dated 20.07.1995 failed to appreciate the legality , relevance and effect of the orders of permanent allotment of land. Alleged claim/ entitlement qua prospective proprietary rights, in the wake of cancellation of allotment, is merely a figment of imagination. No proprietary rights can be claimed in view of factum of cancellation/ expiry of term of lease. The objection that learned counsel were not heard is without force - when analyzed in the context of power of attorney placed on record by respondents Nos.3 to 8. The factum of litigation initiated before the courts of general jurisdiction is not denied - though said facts were not disclosed in instant petitions. This manifests lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has highlighted allegation of double allotment to Mst. Bakht Noor and consequently the rights claimed by subsequent purchasers -respondents Nos.3 to 8. This court is not proceeding to dilate or adjudicate upon said issues, which are being dealt with in separate proceedings - as apparent from the text of the order impugned. I have examined the order impugn ed and do not find any illegality therein, requiring exercise of judicial review jurisdiction.
8. In view of the aforesaid, these constitutional petitions are devoid of merits and the same are, therefore, dismissed.