' A large tract of Waqf Agricultural Land situated in six revenue estates at different rates of rent in all amounting to Rs, 89,000 per year was leased out to the petitioner for a period of three years from Kharif 1962 to Rabi 1965. Premium so calculated comes to Rs, 2,67,000. A sum of Rs, 2,20,995 has already been paid by the petitioner towards payment of the lease money, leaving only a balance of Rs, 46;005. This amount is being recovered from him as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to question the validity and correctness of the demand made against him on variety of grounds fully enumerated in the writ petition. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No, 4 wherein the factual controversy raised by the petitioner in the writ petition has been controverted.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel has contended that there is no provision in the Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 empowering the authorities working thereunder to determine the dues unilaterally without giving a right of hearing to the affected persons. It has also been contended that in the absence of a specific provision in the Ordinance empowering the Auqaf Authorities to determine the dues and order its recovery as arrears of land revenue, the only way open to them was to file a civil suit and get a judicial determination first and then order its recovery. On factual plane, the learned counsel has contended that as a result of heavy floods, the petitioner suffered great losses for which he approached the relevant authorities for the purposes of getting remission in the payment of rent.
He has also contended, that the tenant did not pay him the produce at the instigation of the Auqaf Department which deprived him of his right to receive the proper rent from them. It has been further contended that due to his political affiliation, the local administration turned hostile to him and did not help him in making realization of rent from the tenants in occupation of the land comprised in his lease. Proceeding further, learned counsel contended that no proper lease deed was executed which could have helped him in getting a mutation attested in his favour. In the absence of a regular lease deed and the consequent mutation, he was not in a position to seek redress against his tenants from the Revenue Court. Certain applications placed on file of the present writ petition have been referred to by the learned counsel in this behalf. Through these applications, the petitioner requested the Revenue Authorities for carrying out the appraisement of produce.
4. Learned counsel, Mr. Riaz Kiani, on the other hand, has controverted the factual controversy raised. He has contended that after the land was given on lease to the petitioner terms whereof have been given in Annexure 'R. I', it was the petitioner alone who was to deal with his tenants. In case of their refusal, he could have easily approached the revenue Courts under the Punjab Tenancy Act for recovery of share of produce from the tenant. The Auqaf Department had nothing to do with tenants after the land comprised in lease was given to the petitioner on patta for a period of three years. Per terms of the lease, the petitioner was bound to pay the lease money to the Auqaf Department regardless of the fact that he allegedly failed in getting share of produce from his tenants. The Auqaf Department had not made itself liable in terms of the lease to help the petitioner to recover rent from the tenants and failing which entitled the petitioner to stop the payment of lease money. In the absence of any such . Stipulation in the terms of the lease, the petitioner cannot claim adjustment in the amount of rent payable for the lease period.
Appraisement of the produce (Kankut) made by the Revenue officials at the instance of the present petitioner is not at all relevant to the liability of the petitioner to pay the lease money.
5. There is no need for the respondents to file a civil suit against the petitioner to get its dues determined. The period of lease and the amount of premium is fully known to the petitioner, and its payment is not dependent on any inquiry to be made in which the petitioner's association is legally necessary.
6. As stated above, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs, 2,20,995 and only a sum of Rs, 46,005 is due from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases :-
(1) Firm Sahib Dayal Bakhshi Ram v. Assistant Custodians of Evacuee Property and another (AIR 1952 Pb. 389),
(2) Firm Pariteshah Sadashiv v. Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property Amritsar and another (AIR 1953 Pb. 21),
(3) Haralal v. Kanhyalal (AIR 1953 Raj. 184), and
(4) J. M. Messey v. Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab, Simla and another (AIR 1956 Pb. 40). to contend that no power is available to the authorities ,acting under the provisions of Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, to unilaterally determine the liability of the petitioner. A close reading of the judgments would show that they proceed on distinguishable facts and are inapplicable to the present controversy. Under section 15 of the Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, rent and lease money in respect of the Waqf Property can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Lease money in the instant case is definite sum known to the petitioner and there is no dispute about its, correctness and liability of the petitioner to pay it to the Auqaf Department. By virtue of this provision, the authorities acting under the Ordinance have powers and jurisdiction both to determine the amount of leas money/rent and order its recovery as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner-lessee.
The petitioner is possessed of an alternate remedy too. If liability to pay is disputed, after depositing the amount sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, a suit can be filed by him to have his alleged grievances redressed in a Court of law. Under section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, person denying his liability for the arrears or any part thereof, after paying the amount was allowed to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount so paid. In section 91 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, identical provisions are made. The petitioner, therefore, is not without a remedy. He cannot be allowed to evade his liability to pay lease money to the Auqaf Department in exercise of equitable writ jurisdiction.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly with no orders as to costs.