MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- The case of the petitioner is that he was granted lease of disputed land under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government (Lands) Punjab Act, 1912 and after expiry of the original lease period of one year he made an application for extension of the said lease.
Subsequently however the case was initiated by A.C/Collector on the report of Patwari that the petitioner was in illicit cultivation of the land. A.C/Collector after hearing the petitioner passed an order dated 22.2.1984 holding that the petitioner was a trespasser over the land in question and the claim of the petitioner that he was granted lease of the land for one year was not found correct and order of his dispossession was passed and he also imposed Tawan on the petitioner for illicit cultivation of the land.
2. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) which was dismissed by him by order dated 16.7.1985. The .Petitioner then filed revision petition before learned Member Board of Revenue, who by order dated 25.5.1986, dismissed the same but it was held by him that the petitioner was given lease of the land for only one year i.e. From 1974 to 1975 and thereafter he was in illegal occupation of the said land. In the meantime, however the petitioner had moved application for extension of his lease period before the learned Member Board of Revenue as well as District Collector and the Commissioner on executive side. On his application the learned Member Board of Revenue passed order of stay on 19.4.1979 which was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 29.9.1986.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the stay order was withdrawn without hearing him and without any notice to him and that the application of the petitioner for extension of lease period is still pending and it has not been disposed of by the learned Member Board of Revenue.
The petitioner has also challenged the legality of orders dated 22.2.1984,16.7.1985 and 25.5.1986 passed by A.C/ Collector, Addl. Commissioner and learned Member Board of Revenue, respectively.
4. After hearing learned counsel lor the petitioner viz-a-viz these later three orders I do not find any justification for interference in the same as the learned Member, Board of Revenue has held as a matter of fact that the petitioner was granted lease of the land only for one year and no document or other material has been placed on the file by the petitioner in order to show that the lease of the land was for any period more than one year. In these circumstances, the order dated 25.5.1986, passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue and previous two orders dated 22.2.1984 and 16.7.1985 calls from no interference. To that extent, the writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed.
However, the petitioner appears to be on stronger footing so far, as order dated 29.9.1986 passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue withdrawing order of stay during the pendency of petitioner's application for extension of lease period is concerned, the petitioner was not issued any notice before passing the said order which fact cannot be denied as it is apparent from the impugned order itself. It has also not been otherwise argued that the petitioner was heard before the said order was passed. It has been pleaded by the learned counsel for contesting respondents that on 22.12.1986, the possession of the land in dispute was taken over from the petitioner and order to establish this fact he has placed on record a photo copy of roznamcha waqiati. Learned counsel for the petitioner still insisted that as a matter of fact the petitioner was still in physical possession of the land.
5. During the course of arguments the learned AA.G sought short time to contact learned Member, Board of Revenue so as to obtain instructions regarding the disposal of the application of the petitioner for the extension of lease period. After obtaining instructions learned A.A.G informed the Court that the learned Member, Board of Revenue shall consider the application of the petitioner for extension of lease period and shall dispose of the same after, hearing him in accordance with law on the executive side. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner shall also stand redressed if the learned Member, Board of Revenue disposes of his that application which is as a matter of fact, the main relief sought in this writ petition. In these circumstances, the writ petition therefore is hereby disposed of in these terms, that the Member, Board of Revenue shall proceed to dispose of application of the petitioner for extension of lease period. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 21.1.1988 for this purpose. In these circumstances of the case as noted above, status quo shall be maintained till 21.1.1988. If the learned Member, Board of Revenue is not in a position to dispose of the said application of the petitioner on the said date on account of his own other engagement or other reasons, and not due to fault of the petitioner, he shall extend the stay till he is in a position to dispose of the application.
Needless to say, that the application of the petitioner shall be considered on the basis of facts as they were before 29.9.1986.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.