' The petitioner was a lessee of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals situate in Chak No, 198/T. D. A.
Of Bbakkar. The land belonged to the Thal Development Authority. The period of his lease expired in Rabi 1980. The Thal Development Authority declined to extend the lease on the ground that the land was required for readjustment of the claim of the local owners and transferred the same in favour of Mst. Bakhoo. Upon this the petitioner moved this writ petition claiming that by virtue of a notification issued on 1st March, 1978 by the Colonies Department of the Government of the Punjab his lease stood automatically extended up to Rabi' 1983 and that the revenue authorities were not competent to cancel the same.
2. The petition was resisted by the respondents who claimed that the land was given on lease to the petitioner on the clear understanding that he would surrender its possession if at any time it was required for a permanent scheme of for adjustment of the claims of the local land owners and as in this case the land had been allotted to a local owner for the said purpose the petitioner was not entitled to any extension in the period of his lease which already stood expired. In support of this contention the affidavits filed by the petitioner at the time of obtaining lease or extension of lease were also produced in which the said understanding was clearly recited.
3. The petitioner has not disputed the correctness or genuineness of the affidavits which have been attributed to him or the undertaking which he had given therein. His case however is that the land held by him was never owned by Mst. Bakhoo and for that reason it could not be allotted to her in adjustment of her claim. I find little merit in this contention for he has not been able to produce any instructions of the Government or That Development Authority to the effect that while making adjustments only such land as was originally owned by the local owner could be given to him.
Admittedly Mst. Bakhoo was a local owner in the village where the land in dispute is situate. This being so I do not see how the petitioner can question the decision of the Thal Development Authority in giving the land in dispute to her in adjustment of here claim.
4. The petitioner has relied upon the instructions issued by the Colonies Department on 1st March, 1978 in support of his claim that he is entitled to extension of his lease upto Rabi 1983 but then these instructions apply to State land whereas the land in dispute belongs to the Thal Development Authority. On the other hand the leases of land belonging to the Thal Development Authority are governed by the memorandum issued by the Colonies Department on 18th July, 1979. It is stated in this memorandum that the lessees should be called upon to execute bonds to the effect that if during the currency of lease period the land is required for adjustment or any other public purpose they shall surrender the possession peacefully. This being the position it is hardly open to the petitioner to contend that he is entitled to automatic extension of his lease.
5. For the reasons stated above I find no merits in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.