The dispute in this case is about State land bearing an area of 204 acres, 7 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Chak No. 6/Faiz in 'Tehsil and District Multan. This land was leased out to Makhdum Sajjad Hussain Qureshi (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity, as the Makhdum) under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme of 1952. During the operation of the first Lard Reforms Regulation, 64 of 1959, the aforesaid area was surrendered by the Makhdum, inasmuch as, his other area exceeded the rermissible ceiling, with the result that the land reverted to the lessor, namely, the Provincial Government. It was then allotted to one Raja Sultan Masud for the unexpired portion of the aforesaid lease which ended in June 1973. The land thereafter was being given on short term leases to respondents 4 to 23 in different 1, ors and on different terms with a common stipulation that "during the patta period if the land is allotted under a permanent scheme the lessees will be bound to give up its possession forthwith" or that "the land will be resumed as and when required for disposal under a permanent scheme."
2. On 5-7-1975 vide, and on the terms and conditions contained in. Anrexure 'A', the provincial Government allotted the aforesaid land to the petitioner under Tube-well Sinking Conditions of 1952. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had earlier been allotted certain Area in Village Abdul Hakim. Tehsil Kabirwala District Multan, which was later on taken away from bit as not allotable due to being within a radius of one mile from Abdul Hakim Town- It was in lieu o?' and in exchange for Abdul Hakim land that the present land in Chak No. 6 Faiz was given to the petitioner op the same terms and conditions. The letter of the Provincial Government dated 5.7-1975, however, stated that the land in Chak No. 6/Fait was to be given to the petitioner "provided the area to 5e given in exchange is available for allotment". Considering that the Area in Chak No. 6/Fait was available a formal deed of exchange was also executed between the Provincial Government and the petitioner on 31-7-1975 and registered on 13-3-1976.
3. This gave rise to multiple litigation ; (i) between respondents 4 to 23 and the petitioner (ii) between the petitioner and the said respondents and (iii) between the petitioner or respondents and the Provincial Government, into the details whereof I need not enter. It will be sufficient for my purpose to state that the respondents at certain stage of litigation filed an application under section 29 of M. L R. 115 of 1972 before the Chairman. Federal Land Commission. In his capacity as a delegatee of the revisional power of the Federal Government, submitting that actually the disputed land, though a State land, was such which was surrendered by the Makhdum under the first Land Reforms Regulation 64 of 1959, and as such. Ought to be or ought to have been given to them thereunder. This plea was accepted by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, who, setting as de the orders of the Provincial Government as also the formal exchange deed hereinbefore mentioned directed that this land should be settled upon respondents 4 to 23 as old tenants thereof. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the last mentioned proceedings and order of the Chairman Federal Land Commission, to this Court.
4. This case was heard along with Writ Petition No. 2211 of 1976 titled Syed Abrar Hussain Shah v.
Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and others decided today In that case I have held. Following and at the same time supplementing and confirming an earlier view of a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 3-5-1971 reported in Shamir and 83 others v. The Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1973 Lah. 264), where the judgment for the Bench was written by me and wherein it was held that State land surrendered by a lessee under M. L. R. 64 of 1959 was to revert to the lessor i.e. The Provincial Government and was not to form a subject- matter of disposal under that Regulation. The aforesaid two judgments contain copious reasons in support o?' the view enunciated therein and I would not repeat the same here over again. For the reasons contained in the aforesaid two judgments, the present writ petition shall have to be accepted and the order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission to the contrary, shall have to be quashed. As a matter of fact, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, also decided the present case with reference to leis view and judgment in the above-mentioned connected case (i.e. The case of Syed Abrar Hussain Shah).
5. When confronted with the above situation, learned counsel fur respondents 4 to 23 submitted that in the instant case the petitioner instituted a suit for retention of land in Abdul Hakim which was still pending, whereas, at the same time, he has filed the present writ petition for obtaining land in Chak No. 6/Faiz, without disclosing the pendency of the earlier suit. When faced with this objection, the petitioner on 11-10-1977 withdrew the civil suit regarding Abdul Hakim land. Learned counsel for the respondents) submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing the factum of the pendency of civil suit regarding Abdul Hakim land was such for which the present writ petition should be straightaway dismissed as the petitioner had not come to this Court with clean bands and had withheld a necessary relevant information from this Court deliberately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the Bar that be, no doubt, drafted the writ petition but considered that mention of that side of litigation in his bona fide opinion was not relevant and as a matter of fact this aspect of the matter was so clear to all concerned that its omission could not have given surprise to anybody. I have no basis to doubt the aforesaid plea. If the omission of a fact is under a bona fide legal advice it cannot be said that the conduct of a petitioner is such which may disentitle him to get an appropriate relief from this Court. I hold accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents then wanted to challenge the very allotment dated 5-7- 1975 made to the petitioner of land in Chak No. 6/ Faiz in the form of exchange deed or in lieu of Abdul Hakim land. I have no intention to go into the details of the aforesaid deed/ allotment/ exchange so long as the Provincial Government did no; appear to oppose the same before me. I would, therefore. Leave that aspect of the matter open for contest, scrutiny or adjudication by the appropriate and competent authorities in accordance with law. Attention of the learned counsel for the parties vas invited to Martial Law Order No. 14 which was promulgated on 23-9-1977 and which reads as follows : "MARTIAL LAW ORDER No. 14 ALLOTMENTS OF STATE LAND AFTER 1971 CANCELLED
(1) Any allotment of State land made between first day of January 1972 and 4th day of duly 1977 which is not covered by any regular scheme issued for the purposes under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, or which has been obtained fey using offal position or political influence or by means of fraud or misrepresentation of facts or in violation or relaxation of any law, rule, condition. Policy instructions or orders, may notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any law for the tinge being in force, or any order or decree of a Court, Tribunal or authority be cancelled by the Board of Revenue or any Officer authorised by them in this behalf: Provided that no order of cancellation shall be passed without giving the allottee a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the B. O. R. In case the allottee is not satisfied with the decision of B.
O. R. The position may be referred to the M. L. A. For final review written seven days.
Explanation.-Allotment includes any grant, lease, exchange, sale by private treaty, restoration of a resumed lease or any other transaction so declared by the Board of Revenue.
(2) On cancellation of allotment, Collector shall resume this land forthwith.
(3) No compensation or claim for improve-meat other than compensation in respect of any standing crops shall be payable by the Government to the outgoing allottee.
(4) The Board of Revenue may issue such instructions as it deems necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Martial Law Order and such instruction shall be deemed to form part of this order and shall have effect accordingly."
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present writ petition is partly accept-d only to the extent that the order and proceedings of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission impugned herein are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioner and are hereby quashed, leaving the question of scrutiny of the matter open, If so warranted by any other law for the time being in force, as above explained. The parties to bear their own costs.