1. IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---Pir Gul Hasan Shah (Pir of Louari Sharif) since deceased had large chunks of agricultural lands in District Badin and elsewhere. On the promulgation of Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. No. 64), by its Article 8 limit was prescribed on individual holding. Lands in excess of limits so prescribed had to be resumed from the Khata of the land owner. Article 9, however, provided certain exemptions. Article 9(d) of the Regulation provided that "Government may, in public interest, allow owners or operators of recognized existing stud and livestock farms to retain such additional area under such farms as it considers necessary for the purpose, so far long such areas are maintained as stud and livestock farms". Taking advantage of this exemption, the late Pir Sahib was granted an area of 3223 acres of land for stud/livestock forms by the Sindh Land Commission. By subsequent Martial Law Regulation 115 promulgated in 1972, by its para. 15 the areas under stud farms were required to be resumed to the Land Commission. In exercise of powers conferred under para. 19 of Martial Law Regulation 115, the Sindh Government on 22-8-1973 issued a notification whereby they permitted Mehar Farm of Sukur District and stud farm under consideration to retain 50% of the land under livestock farms. The land granted earlier to Pir Louari Sharif for establishing stud farms was, therefore, reduced to its 50% area. In view of change in the law relating to the Land Reforms, the grants made earlier under MLR No.64 and lease of land granted to the predecessors of the petitioner came to an end. MLR 115 in clear terms repealed the MLR 64. Land Reforms Act, 1977 was enacted on 5th January, 1977 and it was not enacted in a detailed form. This Act did not repeal the MLR 115 of 1972 and from its nature this enactment can only be termed as a supplementary law. In view of this proposition the enactment of 1972 so far it related to the matters provided there will continue to be enforced.
2. The land which was on lease on certain terms and conditions to late Pir Gul Hasan Shah who expired in the year 1982 and thereafter lease was not renewed. The Sindh Land Commission, it appears, in the year 1987 decided that the land under the so-called stud farm of Pir Louari Sharif will not be renewed hereafter. It is after this order that the present petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Rochi Ram, Advocate for the petitioner, has mainly contended that before cancelling the lease in question the Sindh Land Commission was required by law to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In this case the land has been cancelled without hearing the petitioner or her representatives.
4. Mr. SA. Jamali, Advocate appearing for Pir Faiz Muhammad, respondent No.4, has contended that the petition suffers from laches and is not maintainable. He referred to the earlier petition being C.P.
5. No.D-30 of 1988 which squarely covers the present dispute and was dismissed. On that account too the present petition is not maintainable. He referred to the case reported in PLD 1990 Lah. 472.
6. Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the official respondents, contends that the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation override all other laws and the decision not to renew the lease has been taken under the provisions contained in MLR 115 and, therefore, no notice is required to be given under the Transfer of Property Act as claimed by the Advocate for the petitioner.
7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she has been denied the renewal of the lease of the resumed land under scheme of running a stud/livestock farm and that the refusal to renew the existing lease which expired in 1982 has been done without hearing her. Since the refusal to grant lease has been done under special statute overriding the principles contained in the normal laws, no grievance can be made out on any legal plane. Beside, the lease of the land came to an end in the year 1982 and the petition has been filed 5 years later and that too after the dismissal of previous Petition No. C.P.D-30 of 1988, the petition suffers from laches which cannot be condoned.
8. For the foregoing reasons I find no force in this petition which is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.