' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Khan Muhammad and 3 others want this Court to declare the decision, dated 18-5-1981 of Committee consisting of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by which the Committee has declared to utilize the disputed land under the tenancy of the petitioner for fish culture, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition as stated by the learned counsel in brief are that the disputed land was once acquired by the Government for construction of Sidhnai Canal Barrage. Since after the construction of new Sidhnai Barrage, this disputed land was no more required for the use of Canal, the same was surrendered in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Multan. Thereafter, on 20 1-1983, it was leased out to the petitioner by A. C/Collector, Kabirwala for 5 years i. e. From Kharif, 1982 to Rabi, 1978. About a week before the filing of this writ petition, the employees of the Irrigation Department inspected the disputed land to demarcate when the petitioners gained knowledge that a Committee consisting of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 known as a Committee for Formulation of Scheme of Abandoned Canal for Fish Culture, has decided in its meeting, dated 18-5-1981 that this land should be brought under Fish Culture. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel submits that since the land was surrendered, by the Canal Department in favour of the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter it, was validly leased out to the petitioners for 5 years, the respondent's decision of the Committee to use the disputed land for Fish Culture is of no legal effect against the rights of the petitioners.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the lease in favour of the petitioners is not under the order of the Commissioner and as such it was not valid under para. 493 of the Land Administration Manual. I further find that the petitioners have no vested right in the land. I am of the opinion that since the Committee vide its decision dated 18-5-1981 i. e. 2 years before the lease in favour of the petitioners had decided that this land should be brought under Fish Cultute, the A. C./Collector should not have leased the same to the petitioners. Furthermore, the specific Khasra numbers of the land to be demarcated have not been mentioned in the impugned decision, Annexure 'E/1' and the demarcation has not been done so far.
5. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.