' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(1) That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the impugned Rubkari (Order dated 10-2- 1993) issued is without lawful authority and as such it is illegal.
(ii) To direct the respondents to renew the petitioner's lease and/or to transfer the land permanently to his name as provided under the relevant law.
(iii) Any other relief that this Honourable Court be pleased to give and grant under the circumstances of the petitioner's case.
' The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a tiller of the soil resides on the Daryakhurdi Katcha land situate in Deh Dodo Bhutto, Taluka Gambat, District Khaipur and was granted a lease of 64 acres of the said land for ten years vide Ijazatnama, issued on 20-1-1972. This lease was renewed for a further period of ten years vide another Ijazatnama issued on 30-4-1985. According to the petitioner, he is sitting on the said land as his house as well as that of his family members are already constructed thereon and thus in view of the land grant policy issued by the Government vide Notification No,KBI/I/30/72/1413/3240, dated 27-3-1973, he has acquired a vested right of renewal of lease with regard to the said land. In these circumstances, the petitioner, vide application dated 3-2-1993, approached the Assistant Coinmissioner, Gambat for renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 1993/94 but the Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Gambat issued Rubkari to the petition? Informing him that in view of the change of land grant policy vide Notification No,SB-III/17403/P/82/1993, dated 25-1-1993, he cannot be granted such renewal of lease.
2. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. G.H. Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Assistant Advocate-General for the respondents. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the previous land grant policy of 1973, as issued under the provisions of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the persons holding previous Khas- mokal rights in Katcha lands have been given priority of right over the other tenants whereas such right has been ignored in the subsequent land grant policy of the year 1993. The learned counsel has submitted that the previous land grant policy was issued in supersession of all previous Notifications whereas the 'subsequent land grant policy does not supersede or repeal the previous land grant policy. Mr. Abbasi has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum (PLD 1976 SC 435). Mr. K.M. Nadeem has vehemently opposed the above contention of the learned counsel on the ground that when a subsequent policy is issued it is deemed to have superseded the previous policy by implication.
4. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. A plain reading of the two policies would show that renewal of the lease in Katcha lands as provided in section 11 of the previous policy of 1973 could only be done in an open Kutchery. Although section 2 of this policy provides that the land can be granted on an application but it is clear that the renewal can only he done through open Kutchery. The subsequent land grant policy vide its section 11(4) also provides that the allotment has to be made through open Kutchery. We have perused the comments placed on record by the respondents. It has not been asserted in these comments if the land in dispute has been allotted to any other person nor dues it show if any open Kutchery has been held with regard to disposal of this land. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to bid for the grant of the land in open Kutchery if so held. Accordingly, we would accept this petition, set aside the Rubkari issued by the Mukhtiarkar, Gambat Taluka and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the open Kutchery for disposal of the said land as and when held and till then the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. The right of the petitioner to grant of such lease would be dealt in accordance with the law by the Revenue Authorities disposing the land in open Kutchery. The parties are left to bear their own costs.