' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above 29 petitions for leave to appeal. They are directed against a common judgment dated 6-12-1993 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.6524 of 1991 and 28 connected writ petitions and nine Intra-Court Appeals mentioned in the body of the impugned judgment, dismissing the same subject to the observations contained in respect of some of above Writ Petitions and Intra-Court Appeals in the body of the impugned judgment. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The brief, facts are that the petitioners were granted land under Animal Breeding Scheme for a period of ten years on various dates. It appears that in all the cases except in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,425 of 1994 while their applications for renewal of the lease after the expiry of lease period were pending, a notification dated 25-4-1991 was issued. The latter reduced the ceiling of entitlement of the various retired Army personnel according to their ranks. The petitioners contested the above right of the respondents to change the terms. They and the other affected allottees inter alia filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions and Intra-Court Appeals. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dismissed the same with certain observations contained therein and recorded finding that the accumulative effect of conditions Nos.49 to 52 of the grants contained in Notification No,512-70/704-C-L-1, dated 22-9-1970 was that the respondent was competent to reduce the above ceiling by framing new terms of grant. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petitions learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the Government was not entitled to change the terms of the renewal to the disadvantage of the petitioners while their applications for renewal were pending. A perusal of above conditions Nos.49 to 52 of the grants indicates that the Government had reserved the right to issue fresh terms and conditions even during the currency of the lease. Additionally, under para 2 of condition No,51 it was provided that "The Government reserves the absolute right regarding future renewal and may not renew the lease without assigning any reason. In such case no prior notice by the Government shall be necessary".
4. In this view of the matter the above contention is devoid of any force as the petitioners could not have claimed renewal of the lease as a matter of right. The corollary of the above conclusion is that the Government was free to offer renewal for a lesser area that what was covered in the expired lease. The rationale for reducing ceiling of the area for allotment seems to be that the Government wishes to accommodate more retired Army personnel under the above Scheme.
5. Then it was urged that even in 1993 and 1994 the Government has granted renewal of lease to some of the retired Army personnel on the basis of the old ceiling and, therefore, discriminated inter se between the allottees. In support of the above submission Sh. Abdul Aziz, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for one of the petitioners, has produced photostat copies of a Letter No,F 21/D-4(A-IV) 91, dated 23-9-1993 and of two letters No,5804/268/Rem/C both, dated 14-11-1994.
Since these documents were not produced before the High Court, there is no discussion on the same. However, the High Court on the basis of the record available before it has held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case of discrimination.
6. We would not like to enter into the above controversy, whether factually the Government renewed leases/granted lease on the basis of the old ceiling in deviation of the policy contained in the aforesaid notification dated 25-4-1991. However, we may observe that it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Government for examining the question, as to whether their cases are identical with the cases covered by the above three letters of 1993 and 1994. The Government will decide the above question according to law.
The facts of Civil Petition No,425 of 1994 appears to be different, in which lease was renewed up to the period expiring in June, 1996, but the same was cancelled on the ground that the petitioners' performance was not found satisfactory. The High Court has rightly observed that it is open to the petitioners to agitate the above question before the forums provided under the relevant law. The above petition has also no merits.
' Leave is refused in all the petitions.