1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---This order will dispose of Civil Petition No-473 of 1990 and Civil Petition No.474 of 1990, as the questions falling for decision in both these matters are the same.
2. The petitioners were granted leases, by the Government of Punjab under the 15 years Scheme in 1971 and they claim to be in continuous possession of the areas leased out to them since 1972. The authorities have ordered resumption of their leases on the ground that the petitioners committed breaches of the terms of lease. This action was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court through 5 writ petitions. The learned Judge before whom the writ petitions came up for hearing called for a report from the authorities in the following terms:--.
3. "The learned counsel contends that para 14 of the Notification No.2664--C, dated 22nd September, 1916 as amended by Punjab Government Notification No.386-C dated the 6th of September, 1944 laying down conditions for grant of temporary cultivation leases contemplates that canal water should be available to the lessee under the said schemes to enable him to fulfil the conditions of the lease and that no canal water having been made available and sub-soil water being unfit for irrigation, condition of cultivation of 1/4th of land during each crop was impossible of performance and therefore, the cancellation of the grants of land on the ground of non-fulfilment of the said condition of Temporary Cultivation Scheme is without lawful authority. The learned counsel further contends that the refusal of the authorities to grant proprietary rights under Notification dated 3rd September, 1979 on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition which was otherwise impossible to be fulfilled conflicted seriously with Peasants Charter issued by Federal Government in the year 1976 which provided for grant of proprietary rights to all the tenants who hold no land or landless than subsistence holding. In view of the contentions raised, I am inclined to protect the possession of the petitioners. If the petitioners are still in possession of their tenancies, their said possession shall not be disturbed till such time as the case comes up for motion hearing after the summer vacation."
4. In the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner Lodhran, apart from the reply on merits, certain preliminary objections were also taken which are reproduced below:-- ---1------------.The petitioners have filed this writ petition direct before this Hon'ble Court. They should have first knocked the door of the Court of learned Commissioner, Multan Div., Multan and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The writ petition being premature does not lie which may very kindly be Dismissed---------.."
2. The lots are situated in various Chaks and leased out to various lessees/petitioners which were resumed on different dates. Facts and whereabouts of every lot are different e.g. Case' of Yasin shown at S.No.67 of the list of petitioners was decided on 1-6-1981 on different grounds i.e. His lot was cancelled due to the fact that his father Noor Muhammad was holding another lot under Grow More Food Scheme and thus he had become ineligible for this lot. The petitioners have not mentioned this fact in the petition. Instead of filing separate writ petitions, they have filed this joint writ petition misleading this Hon'ble Court, which is not maintainable on these grounds.
5. The High Court accepted the preliminary objections and dismissed h writ petitions on the ground that adequate remedies were' available to the petitioners which they ought to have first exhausted, before approaching the High Court. Hence these petitions for leave.
6. Mr.S.M. Masud has been heard in support of these petitions.
7. But we think that there is force in the objections raised by, the respondents that a consolidated writ petition on behalf of all the petitioners is misconceived because the lots were situated in various Chaks, they were resumed on different dates and on different grounds. Accordingly, it was only proper that every petitioner should have first moved the departmental authorities separately, where the facts of each case could be properly thrashed out, before approaching the High Court.
8. Mr.S.M. Masud, however, submitted that the fundamental questions arising in each case being the same namely those which have been noticed by the learned Judge of the High Court in his order dated 11-8-1981 while calling for the report, there was no need for the petitioners to move the departmental authorities separately. We cannot agree. The existence of some common questions does not obviate the necessity for each petitioner to approach the departmental authority separately and setting forth the facts of his individual case. He could, of course, herein rely on the points noticed by the learned Judge in his order dated 11-8-1981, in support of his case. These questions undoubtedly will have to be dealt with by the Revenue authorities and we expect them to do so while disposing of the cases which are brought before it.
9. The upshot is that these petitions shall stand dismissed with these observations.