' The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that some residents of "D" Block Satellite Town, Sargodha (90 in numbers) submitted an application before the Chief Minister in September, 1989 requesting for selling of State land lying vacant between the Railway Line and their houses to the owners of respective houses. They undertook to pay the price of the land. The application received through Board of Revenue was processed and ultimately B.O.R./Government of Punjab Colonies Department vide letter, dated 27-6-1991 accorded sanction to the sale of total land measuring 27 Kanals and 12 Marlas to the occupants of adjacent houses @ Rs,20,000 per Marla plus 10% surcharge on account of sale by private treaty plus 50% penalty for unauthorised possession with certain conditions mentioned therein. The aforesaid letter was implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit but the land in possession of the petitioner measuring 8 Marlas and 156 sq.. Ft. Was not included in the list prepared by the Revenue field staff. The petitioner preferred an application after four years of aforesaid sanction by the B.O.R. Which reveals that he also opted to purchase the land in question on the market price rate as per policy on the subject. The B.O.R. Called of a report from D.C., Sargodha, who sent the same to respondent No,1 for necessary action/appropriate orders. The B.O.R. Punjab required D.C., Sargodha to get N.O.C. From the Municipal Committee and sent the same alongwith fresh sale price duly assessed by the District Price Assessm ent Committee. The case was forwarded to respondent No,1 through the Commissioner, Sargodha on 13-3-1997 to the B.O.R. To the following effect:-- "(2) It is mentioned that in view of the submissions made by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha in his report bearing Memo. No,171/CA/UCC, dated 20-2-1997 (copy enclosed), there appears to be no need for a fresh N.O.C. From the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha. As far as the market price of the land in question is concerned, the sale of the land is recommended Rs,26,000 per Marla plus 50% penalty for unauthorised occupation plus 10% surcharge for sale by private treaty (instead of Rs,20,000) per Marla prepared by the Deputy Commissioner due to inflation in rates."
' The D.C. Also fixed the rate of the land in question amounting to Rs,28,000 per Marla in its meeting held on 24-7-1997. Now the respondents refused to implement and accept the aforesaid price and took the stand that the case of petitioner be processed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Government letter, dated 8-7-1998 i,e, according to the new policy, dated 8-7-1998.
2. Petitioner's counsel contended that petitioner is being penalized by the act of public functionaries as is evident from the letter of D.C., dated 7-5-1996 which reveals that the instant case is of left over unit because the name of applicant was inadvertently left over while carrying out survey by the Revenue Field Staff, therefore, petitioner is entitled to purchase the land in question at the rate prescribed on the application of the petitioner alongwith co-applicants and price was fixed @ Rs,20,000 per Marla plus 10% surcharge on account of sale by private treaty plus 50% penalty for unauthorised possession with certain conditions mentioned therein. He further stated that to avoid the litigation the petitioner is ready to purchase the land in question of price fixed by the Price Committee under the direction of M.B.R. In its meeting held on 24-7-1991' fixed Rs,28,000 per Marla alongwith the condition mentioned in aforesaid letter, dated 13-3-1997. He relied upon the following judgments:- PLD 1978 Lah. 912 and unreported judgment' Civil Revision No,2050-D of 1984 and Civil Revision No,3394-D of 1994.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Contended that B.O.R. As well as D.C. Has no authority to sell the land in question through private treaty to the petitioner. He further contended that respondents have not passed any final order against the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable that respondents are ready to process the case of the petitioner and fixed the price in accordance with the latest policy issued by the competent authority on 8-7-1998; that writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents have not passed any final order against the petitioner, that the price fixed by the Price Committee in the light of the meeting, dated 24-7-1997 is not final which is subject to the final approval of M.B.R.
3-A. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted fact that the petitioner alongwith co-applicants submitted an application before the Chief Minister, Punjab in September, 1989, the application was subsequently processed and ultimately B.O.R. Punjab/Government of Punjab Colonies Department accorded sanction on 27-6-1991 and fixed the price amounting to Rs,20,000 per Marla plus 10% surcharge on account of sale by private treaty plus 50% penalty for unauthorised possession with certain conditions mentioned therein. It is also admitted fact that the respondents prepared the list for unauthorised occupants as is evident from the letter of D.C., dated 7-5-1996 which reveals that instant case is of left over unit because name of the applicant was inadvertently left over while carrying out survey by Revenue Field Staff.
This fact is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is being penalized by the act of the public functionaries. It is also settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the act of public functionaries as the principle laid down by this Court in PLD 1994 Lah.
3. It is admitted fact that petitioner has also submitted application to Chief Minister in September, 1989, thereafter the B.O.R. Accorded sanction on 27-6-1991. The petitioner has accrued vested right, the contention of learned A.A.-G. That respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the latest policy, dated 8-7-1998 has no force because as mentioned above the name of petitioner was not included in the list prepared by the Revenue Field Staff of the respondents. The respondents did not take any action against the Revenue Field Staff till date. The respondents did not controvert that the petitioner did not sign the application submitted to the Chief Minister in the year 1989, therefore, contention of learned A.A.-G. That land cannot be sold to the petitioner through private treaty has no force as the petitioner's case must be dealt with in the same manner as large number of seven persons whose cases had been finalised before the revised policy was enforced by letter, dated 8-7-1998. If through no fault of the petitioner and on account of the inaction on the part of the authorities, his application was not decided, he cannot be penalised, I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in PLD 1975 Lah.
7. As Chief Minister has already granted permission and Board of Revenue has already sanctioned the case of petitioner alongwith co-applicants in the year 1991. The respondents are harassing the petitioner without any justification. It is settled proposition of law that each and every public functionary are duty bound to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution. The Honourable Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530. It is surprised to note that the case has not been placed before the M.B.R. For consideration, the subordinate has written the letter to D.C. And, did not decide the controversy till date and the petitioner was constrained by the aforesaid circumstances to file present writ petition. Since the petitioner is ready to purchase the land on the basis of the latest price assessed by the District Price Committee in the meeting held on 24-7-1997, coupled with the conditions mentioned in the letter, dated 13-3-1997, therefore, respondents are bound to sell the same on the price fixed by the District Price Committee and conditions laid down in the aforementioned letter. It is also admitted fact that petitioner submitted application in September, 1989 which was finally accepted on 27-6- 1991 by the Member, Board of Revenue. Certain rights have already been created in favour of petitioner. It seems to be well-settled principle of law that a notification which purports to impair as existing or vested right cannot operate retrospectively meaning thereby notification must have a prospective effect, there ore, case of petitioner does not fall under the latest policy, dated 8-7-1998.
The action of the respondent is also in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution as the respondent failed to consider his case at par with his co-applicants. The yardstick must be identical in identical cases. It avoided discrimination and different treatment to similarly placed persons. I am fortified by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041. It is also settled law that nobody is allowed to get benefits of his own misdeeds, therefore, respondents could not earn premium on their own inaction. I am fortified by the judgment of this Court in G.M.
Malik's case 1996 CLC 1783.
' In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to sell the land in question to the petitioner on the aforesaid fixed price amounting to Rs,2,800 alongwith the conditions prescribed in the letter, dated 13-3-1997.