The main grievance of petitioner is that the disputed land is in possession of the Irrigation Department and a direction be issued that the same may be handed over to the Revenue Department from where the petitioner may be able to purchase this land.
2. The Executive Engineer, Khanwah Division, DCC Sahiwal has filed a report to the effect that disputed land was being leased on yearly basis for temporary cultivation since 1979-80 through open auction and petitioner was the highest successful bidder. Writ Petition No.5146-80 was filed by him against the auction and the same was dismissed on 3-7-1983. In the meantime, the petitioner moved an application for No-Objection Certificate which was not granted by letter dated 12-11-1986. By "NOC" the petitioner means that Irrigation Department should authenticate that they do not require the disputed land and then the same can be placed at the disposal of Board of Revenue. The petitioner has now filed this Constitutional petition against letter dated 12-11-1986 by which N.O.C has been refused. This letter is issued by the Section Officer (Operation), Government of the Punjab Irrigation & Power Department to the Colony Assistant Pakpattan Sharif in the following manner:-- "This Department is not willing to part with this piece of land as such No-Objection Certificate cannot be issued."
3. When questioned, the petitioner has not been able to disclose his right to obtain N.O.C. and has rather conceded that the land was put to auction from time to time and he was the highest bidder.
Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently argued that the land is in possession of the respondent and they are not willing to surrender it as the same is needed for plantation. Whatever may be the case, the petitioner has no right to insist that the respondent should hand over the disputed land in favour of Board of Revenue and that a N.O.C. must be issued that they do not require the land for their use and occupation. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in many other cases the land has been reverted back to its original owner and then the same has been sold to other persons. Learned counsel for respondent successfully counter-acted this argument by pointing out that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and that petitioner has no right even to maintain this writ petition. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent and on the facts and circumstances of this case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
4. Lastly, the learned counsel for petitioner relies upon an order dated 13-1-1988 by which the Writ Petition No.1925-1987 was disposed of where Irrigation Department conceded that the land in their possession was not needed and, therefore, they have no objection if the same was surrendered to the Board of Revenue for further disposal. The facts of this case are wholly different because the respondent would not like to surrender the disputed land for which No-Objection Certificate was refused.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.