' The petitioners moved application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore on 8-12-1973 for the purchase of land in their favour at the rate of Rs,10 per P.I.. Unit. In pursuance of Notification No,915- Pol of 1974, dated 20-11-1974 the petitioners submitted another application on 30-12-1974 requesting therein that the earlier application filed by them will be disposed of in accordance with law. This application was, however, decided on 10-9-1984. The request of the petitioner was allowed and a direction was given that the land be sold to the petitioners at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I. Unit.
Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have preferred the present Constitutional petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Notification, dated 27-5-1975 is not applicable to them as the application filed by the petitioners was pending with the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner and the same should have been decided in view of the Notification, dated 20-11- 1974.
3. The learned Legal Advisor appearing on behalf of the Settlement Department has supported the impugned order and contended that the application of the petitioner was filed which remained pending and the decision taken by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue, through which the petitioners were directed to purchase land at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I.
Units suffers from no illegality or jurisdictional defect.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. I fully agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subsequent Notification issued on 27-5-1975 is not applicable as far as the petitioners are concerned as their application was pending much before this Notification came into operation. I am fortified by the judgment of the Lahore High Court reported as Abdul Majid v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner etc. (PLD 1978 Lah. 912) wherein it was held as under:--- "It is, thus, clear that a statutory right to purchase the land had accrued to such persons, who were in occupation of the available land and the land sought to be purchased together with land already held by them did not exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of Land Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The first letter, dated 20-11-1974 was issued in pursuance of proviso to section 3 of the Ordinance. According to subparagraph (ii) the occupants were required to submit their option by 31-12-1974. Under paragraph (iii) it is provided that the sale price shall be determined and payable at the rate of Rs,10 per P.I.U. Of the land to be purchased. It was lastly provided that the work with regard to the disposal of occupied land should be completed by 31-3-1975. It may be noted that in all these cases the petitioner, admittedly applied before 31-12-1974 and their cases were not finalised for one reason or the other. The decision to revise the rate at which the land occupied were to be sold was taken in May, 1975. This decision was communicated to all concerned vide Memo. No,3804/75/ 1206/R(L), dated 27-5-1975. It provided that the matter has been reconsidered by the Government and it has been decided that the disposal of all unallotted available land will henceforth be at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I.U. Instead of Rs,10 per P.I.U. As communicated by office circular Memo.No,915- Pol of 1974, dated 20-11-1974. Immediately, thereafter, the date to exercise option was extended up to 31-5-1976. (I have gathered this date from another Memo. No,57-PM-76/1073-R(L), dated 14-7- 1976 by which the date was further extended up to 30-11-1976). There does not appear to be any intention on the part of the Government to apply the revised rates to cases, which were pending disposal and in which the options had been exercised before 31-12-1974. The words "henceforth" are very significant. The date for exercise of option was also extended. It is, therefore, quite clear that this letter was intended to apply to those persons, who did not exercise their options earlier but had to exercise their options after the date i,e,, 27-5-1975. Even if it be assumed that by this letter it was intended that it will apply to all the pending cases, I am not prepared to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the Department, that as the right to purchase the land at a particular price is not a vested right, the same cannot be enforced by a Constitutional petition. The person occupying the land whose holding was less than the subsistence holding has an absolute right to purchase The Board of Revenue was left only with framing the policy to enforce this right. The policy was, thus, framed under the letter, dated 20-11-1974 . "
5. In the instant petition admittedly the petitioners applied before the target date i,e,, 30-12-1974 but somehow their application was not decided by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner.
Respectfully following the abovesaid dictum, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be refused the right to purchase the land at the rate of Rs,10 per P.I. Unit as the Notification issued in 1974 is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 10-9-1984 whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs,100 per P.I. Unit declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal consequence. The same is set aside. The amount already deposited by the petitioners for the purchase of the land in dispute at the rate of Rs,10 per P.I. Unit in view of the Notification issued in the year 1974 shall be considered as valid deposit. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.