1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- Some 55 years ago, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Lambardar in Chak No. 48 / D . N . B . , Tehsil and District Bahawalpur in the former Bahawalpur State. At that the, he was also allotted half a square of land bearing Rectangle No. 66, Kills Nos. 16- 25, Rectangle No. 67, Killas Nos. 11 to 13, 17 to 25; in all or area of 96 kanals in the said Chak. On 21-3- 1949, a notification was issued allowing the Lambardars to retain the lands granted to them on payment of the prescribed price. Some difficulty arose as to whether this notification covered the case both of temporary and permanent Lambardars. The Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, therefore, referred the matter to the Financial Commissioner for clarification. On 29-12-1951, the Financial Commissioner of the then Bahawalpur State ruled that only permanent headman could avail of the concession and, in case, any temporary headman had deposited the price, it may be refunded to him and the land may be resumed. The petitioner had not deposited the price of the land by then, and deposited the same only after the issuance of the said clarification dated 29-12- 1951 issued by the Financial Commissioner. He, therefore, got the land on the said terms.
2. Unfortunately, when the question of appointment of a permanent headman arose in the year 1968, the petitioner could not be selected. However, there was no Scheme then for granting land to the permanent Headman; hence there was no compulsion to resume the land from the petitioner; nevertheless the area granted to the petitioner in 1939 was sought to be resumed on account of his failure to be appointed a permanent headman.
3. To avoid the resumption of the land, the petitioner approached various forums viz. The Civil Court, the Revenue Courts and then the High Court (in exercise of its writ jurisdiction) but to no avail. The High Court while dismissing his writ petition held that since the petitioner was allowed to retain the area in dispute after the Financial Commissioner had issued the clarification dated 29-12-1951, he had no legal right to retain the land. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid order passed by the High Court.
4. The order of the High Court is, no doubt, correct and, therefore, does not require any interference.
5. But we feel that the petitioner, who has been in possession of the land in question for more than 55 years and spent his entire life in working over it and developing it, should not be deprived of it and the fruits of his labour at this late stage, even though he may not have any right to retain it, strictly in law. In the special circumstances of this case, noticed above, we may consider that this is a fit case where the authorities should consider the question of transferring him this area through private negotiations by executing a private treaty with him. The petitioner is prepared to accept an reasonable terms in this connection.
6. Though this petition is being dismissed, this is subject to the above observations.