The petitioner was holding lease for temporary cultivation for a period of five years. It was due to expire in Rabi 1980. When it was resumed on 5th February, 1979 on the orders of the District Collector Sahiwal as the land was required for utilisation under a permanent Scheme.
Subsequently half of the square was allotted under the Gallantry Award Scheme to Lt.-Gen. Muhammad Iqbal Khan and the other half was returned by the G.H.Q. As it was not required by them under that scheme. This half square was then allotted to Sher Muhammad on 16th October, 1979 in open auction for temporary cultivation. Subsequently this half square was allotted to respondents 4 to 8 on 14th February, 1982 under another permanent scheme known as the Islamabad Oustees. The petitioner has no quarrel with the allotment of half square under the Gallantry Award Scheme to Lt.-Gen. Muhammad Iqbal Khan but claims that the other half which was returned to the Collector should have been given back to the petitioner, who, in the meantime had applied for grant of proprietary rights under the scheme notified by the Punjab Government on 3rd September, 1979. He also claims that the orders of the Board of Revenue placing this land in the schedule of the Islamabad Oustees was without lawful authority as the petitioner was condemned unheard and thereby deprived of his rights without being given a chance to set up his claim.
2. The orders of 5th February, 1979 by the District Collector resuming the whole square of land which was on lease with the petitioner were passed after proper notice to the petitioner. He did not challenge these orders and, therefore, these orders are deemed to have attained finality. The petitioner's lease having been terminated he had no right in this land after that date. The further disposal of the land, therefore, depended entirely on the revenue authorities to whom the land had reverted after the termination of tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The scheme of 3rd September, 1979 under which the petitioner claims a presumptive right, came more than six months after the termination of the tenancy. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim any rights under the scheme of 3rd September, 1979. Needless to say that the scheme applied only to' existing leases, and not to the leases which had come to an end before that date. As regards the change of description of this land from Gallantry Award Scheme to the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, this is a matter entirely within the competence of the revenue authorities and the petitioner can make no grievance of it as after 5th February, 1979 he bad no concern with the land. He, therefore, did not have a right of being heard before the land was disposed of in one way or the other by the revenue authorities. The pendency of his application for grant of proprietary rights is of no consequence as he had no right of grant of proprietary rights as there was no existing lease in his favour at the time when the scheme came into force.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the question of resuming the whole Square No, 59 instead of 'resuming only half square out of it as required by the Military Authorities for allotment under the Gallantry Award Scheme, but he cannot be permitted to raise this objection at this stage when he did not challenge the orders of 5th February, 1979 in appeal or revision even though these remedies were available to him. Even otherwise, whether the District Collector chooses to terminate the whole square of land or only half, it is a question of which the District Collector is the best judge and this is further evidenced from the fact that on 20th February, 1980 the District Collector again decided that the half square which had been returned by the G. H. Q.
Should be kept for other gallantry awardees and not disposed of under lease for temporary cultivation. It is nobody's case that the District Collector was acting mala fide in any way. He was only giving priorities to the requirements of a permanent scheme in preference to the rights under temporary cultivation scheme.
4. In view of the above considerations, I find no merit in this Writ Petition. It is dismissed with costs.