The supra titled writ petition has been addressed under Article 44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, whereby, the petitioner sought for annulment of notification dated 23.07.2009 while reinstating the lease regarding the land measuring 119 kanal 12 marlas issued in favour of petitioner and further prayer has also been made to eject the respondents being trespassers from the above land.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he obtained the lease of the land measuring 119 kanal 12 marlas comprising Survey No. 2403 (59 Kanal 6 Marlas) 2437 (23 Kanal 6 Marlas) and Survey No. 1286 (32 kanal) situated in Village Sehlar and Kalari Tehsil Bhimber for 99 years from the Government on 10.11.1975, however, the supra order was cancelled due to political influence on 08.01.1979, so, the petitioner approached the Leasing Authority who enquired the matter and it was found that the lease granted in favour of petitioner was appropriate, therefore, the Government order dated 08.01.1979 was revoked and restored through order dated 01.09.1990 and the said order was challenged by the respondents before this Court through writ petition which was dismissed on 13.03.2002 and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.06.2002. It has been stated that the application filed by respondents was illegally and without any competence was marked by the then Prime Minister on 18.07.2002 to the revenue authorities who prepared a fake and illegal report regarding the disputed land, thereafter, an illegal notification was issued on 06.11.2003, whereby, the lease supra to the extent of land measuring 88 Kanal 11 Marlas was revoked, however, the same was kept intact to the extent of 13 Kanal 19 Marlas and the lease to the extent of land measuring 12 Kanal 2 Marlas was also revoked. The petitioner, herein, challenged the supra notification before this Court, which was set-aside on 25.03.2008, thereafter, respondents approached the Senior Member Board of Revenue for revocation of the lease agreement then Commissioner Mirpur summoned the petitioner and petitioner filed objections, however, the Commissioner without inquiring into the matter submitted a letter to the Secretary Board of Revenue and thereafter Respondents No. 1 to 3 without applying the judicial mind issued another notification dated 23.7.2009 wherein, the previous notification dated 06.01.2003 was restored with some modification, hence, this writ petition for setting aside the supra notification.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was in possession of 31 Kanal 1 Marla land, however, against the terms of lease agreement, he constructed shops and poultry farm upon 12 Kanal 2 Karlas land, therefore, the lease agreement to the extent of said land was cancelled, however, to the extent of 18 kanal land, the lease agreement was maintained in petitioner's favour, whereas, the remaining land measuring 88 Kanal 11 Marlas was never remained in petitioner's possession as the Government populated the refugees of 1947 upon the said land, who are in possession of the land since 1947 as they had constructed their houses upon the said land. It has been stated that in 1975, at the time of lease agreement, the land was never vacant, however, the petitioner with the connivance of the Chairman District Council got issued the illegal lease in his favour while showing the land empty and in his possession and later on when the matter was inquired, upon the report of Commission, the lease was cancelled on 08.01.1979 and against the said order petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 23.01.1982 and on appeal, the judgment of this Court remained upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through judgment dated 01.03.1987, however, petitioner once again by concealing the facts and by using his political influences, got issued lease in his favour in 1990. It has further been alleged that petitioner was properly summoned by the Commissioner who filed objections, so, the claim of the petitioner that he was not heard by the authority is baseless and unjustified, so, the lease issued in favour of petitioner was rightly cancelled, hence, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person as the land in dispute is crown land and finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
4. The learned counsel for the parties argued the case as per their respective pleadings.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with my due care and caution.
6. The petitioner by filing the instant writ petition seeks annulment of the notification dated 23.07.2009 through which the previous notification dated 06.11.2003 was restored and lease granted in his favour pertaining to the land measuring 88 Kanal 11 Marlas was revoked. For convenience, the said notification is reproduced as under:
7. In the aforesaid notification, it has clearly been mentioned that the land measuring 88 Kanal 11 Marlas was in possession of refugees and 5 kanal was in possession of "Ghairmoroosi" possessors, so to this extent, the lease issued in favour of petitioner was cancelled through the supra notification dated July, 2009. Similarly, in condition No. 3 of the supra notification, it has also been categorically stated that as the petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions of lease to the extent of land measuring 12 Kanal 02 Marlas as he constructed shops, houses and poultry farm upon the said land against the conditions mentioned in the lease agreement, so, the same was also cancelled, however, it was mentioned that the petitioner can move application before the authority under the prevailing law of lease in order to obtain the land for commercial and residential purpose. In Condition No. 4 of the notification supra, as the petitioner used the land as per conditions of lease agreement, therefore, the lease to the extent of land measuring 13 Kanal 19 Marlas was maintained and upheld by the authority. After perusal of the supra notification, I came to the conclusion that the same has been issued purely in accordance with law and conditions of the lease agreement. The petitioner himself did not fulfil the prerequisites of the lease agreement and illegally and against the lease agreement and conditions got possession over the land, however, if he desired so, he could move application before the concerned authority for allotment of the land as per lease law, but instead of adopting such course of law, he with the connivance of the politicians, time and again issued the notification pertaining to lease of the land in his favour, which clearly shows his conduct and behavior that how much he abides by the law. As the refugees migrated from occupied Kashmir and they had no land and means of income, therefore, the government populated them properly by allotting the land lies vacant, so, their proper settlement against any vacant piece of land was also the responsibility of the government.
8. The petitioner also contended that at the time of cancellation of the lease he was not properly heard by the authority. In this regard, petitioner filed writ petition before this Court and this Court directed the relevant authority to properly hear the petitioner, so, petitioner was issued notice by the Commissioner Mirpur and he appeared before the Commissioner and filed objections. Even otherwise, the petitioner in Para No. 9 of the writ petition himself admitted that Commissioner Mirpur division summoned the petitioner and the petitioner filed objections that the Senior Member Board of Revenue was not competent to hear the petitioner upon the application. So, this claim of the petitioner is also hereby repelled and rejected. The petitioner also concealed the facts regarding the litigation in respect of the same subject matter which was decided against him up to the Supreme Court and he once again knocked the door of this Court by concealing the previous litigation which attained finality up to the Apex Court. In my considered view, all the proceedings pertaining to issuance of the supra Notification has been made purely in accordance with law and no illegality or perversity has been committed by the authority while issuing the same, hence, the petition in hand is devoid of any force is liable to be dismissed.
SQUEEZED ANALYSIS
9. The petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court particularly regarding previous judgment passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, wherein, the controversy involving the same subject matter was decided against him. The land cancelled from the name of the petitioner has already stood allotted to the refugees of Indian held Kashmir. Even otherwise, it transpires from record that the petitioner procured the allotment when he was Chairman of the District Council, which seemingly was outcome of political influence, thus, ill-gotten gain.
10. It is trite law that ill-gotten gain cannot be protected through equitable relief of writ. Allotment was cancelled on the report of inquiry Commission and the impugned notification dated 23.07.2009 is self-explanatory, well-reasoned and self-speaking, hence, requires no indulgence at all. The petitioner suppressed the material facts and approached with unclean hands, not only wasted the precious time of this Court but also dragged the respondents in ruthless litigation, by showing magnamity we are not passing any order as to costs.
For the above multiple reasons, the petition in hand is devoid of any force and merit dismissal, thus, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. File shall he kept in archive.