ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner, Lt.-Co. (Retd) Ghulam Rasool Virk, seeks leave to appeal against impugned judgment dated 25-5-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,2249 of 1996 whereby civil revision was accepted, judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29-8-1996 was set aside whereas that of trial Court dated 16-3-1995 was restored.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was allotted land on lease approximately 200 acres in Chak No,21/NB, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha under animal breeding conditions as a reward for the meritorious services rendered on his retirement as Lieutenant- Colonel. The lease was initially for a period of ten years with effect from Rabi 1971 to Kharif, 1981 with a provision of for his renewal in accordance with lease deed. During the existence of the lease period the land was reduced to 75 acres.
3. That the petitioner as required by the terms of lease constructed posh residential house, outhouses, godowns, paddocks, paddock walls, sunk tubewell, planted an orchard of citrus fruit in an area of twenty-five acres and also spent huge amount in reclaiming and improving the quality of the land which was badly hit by water-logging and salinity. The petitioner in addition to it further enhanced its value by linking it with a pacca road, besides making altogether fresh roads and tracks in the stud land, and making a substantial contribution in the straightening and lining of the watercourses and made pucca Nakkas in the stud land. For all that, the petitioner spent about thirty lacs rupees.
4. The respondent No,4 assumed the land vide order dated 12-1-1983 without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No,2 vide order dated 27-2- 1983 directed to respondent No,3 to take possession of the land who redirected the lower revenue staff to implement the same.
5. The said orders were challenged in Writ Petition No,1102 of 1983 by the petitioner before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which vide order dated 19-10-1983 directed the petitioner to invoke arbitration clause of the lease agreement in accordance with law and protected his possesson.
6. Consequently he filed application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Civil Court at Sargodha which was later on amended but later on summarily dismissed on 5-2-1985. The appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 6-7- 1985. Civil Revision No,1385-D of 1985 filed by the petitioner was accepted and the learned Lahore High Court vide order dated 30-10-1985 ordered to return the possession of land to the petitioner on his furnishing security of a sum of rupees two lacs to the satisfaction of trial Court and also directed to dispose of the petition and referred the matter to the Arbitrator. The dispute was referred to the Commissioner/Arbitrator in terms of clause 55 of the lease deed. The Arbitrator announced the award on 29-12-1994 whereby the petitioner was not found entitled to the renewal of the lease due to poor purchasing results/performance and flagrant violation of the terms and conditions. The petitioner's objection petition was dismissed by the trial Court on 16-3-1995 and the award was made rule of the Court. The learned District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 29- 8-1996 set aside the same and referred the matter to the Commissioner for fresh award after allowing the parties to lead evidence. Against the said judgment Civil Revision was preferred in the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
7. We have heard Sahibzada Anwar Hamid, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for respondents Nos.2 to 4 and also Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, learned Deputy Attorney-General for respondent No,5 and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly attacked the award of the Commissioner and stated that the same was illegal as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence. According to him, since he had made huge investments over the lease, however, as such, the question of resumption of possession could only be determined if necessary evidence was allowed to be led. He referred clause 48 of the lease agreement and stated that the tenancy can only be resumed after giving the tenant an opportunity to hear and state his objections. He further submitted that the petitioner has also given notice in writing for the renewal of the tenancy as stipulated in clause 51 of the agreement. In support, he cited the case of Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sial and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (1985 SCM R 9).
9. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently controverted the above contentions and argued that the conduct of the petitioner did not remain above board throughout the tenure of his tenancy and the proceedings. On the contrary he was found disentitled to the renewal of his lease due to poor purchasing results/performance and flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of the lease. It was found that he was not maintaining even a single animal since 1979, as such the land was resumed and the possession was taken from the petitioner on 21- 3-1985. The learned counsel argued that in terms of the tenancy agreement the renewal is not the right of the party and the Government reserved the absolute right about renewal or otherwise without assigning any reason. In support, he referred case reported in Mst. Zainab Khatoon v.
Member, Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (and 8 other connected cases) 1998 SCM R 1188). He lastly contended that after the cancellation of the tenancy and resumption, the land in question has been re-allotted to another (Retd.) Brig: Karam Dad who has not been made party by the petitioner in this petition.
10. The lease period of the petitioner expired in 1980 and the land was resumed in 1983 and it was for him to promptly invoke arbitration clause but he did not do so and on the contrary filed writ petition before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to move the Commissioner, Sargodha Division for arbitration but he did not approach the Commission in that regard. He, instead filed a civil suit in order to prolong his possession.
11. The perusal of the award dated 29-12-1994 of the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division shows that on 28-11-1994 arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard and they were further asked to file their written arguments if so desire. The petitioner did not file his written arguments but the other side filed the same. Even after that the parties were heard again and it was after examining the record, the lease deed and the conduct of the petitioner, it was found that his tenancy had expired in Rabi, 1981 and the concerned authorities found him disentitled due to poor purchasing results/performance and flagrant violation of the terms and conditions, that rightly refused further renewal. The petitioner was granted the land on tenancy for cultivation on animal breeding conditions. Condition "26" authorises the Director or any other, person on his behalf to inspect the animals and the stock of the tenant and has also free access to the land for the purpose of inspecting the breeding animals, their progeny and the stud land. Sub-clause (2) of condition "51" authorises the Government to reserve absolute right regarding future renewal or otherwise of the land on lease without assigning any reason. In such case, no prior notice shall be necessary. This Court in the case of Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Member (Colonies), Board of revenue Punjab and others (supra) has clearly held that renewal of the lease cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
12. The case Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sial and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him and is on different facts and circumstances, as in this case neither notice was given to the petitioners nor they were afforded an opportunity of defending themselves whereas in the case in hand the position is contrary.
13. The learned High Court has elaborately discussed every aspect of the case in detail and there seems to be no illegality in the impugned judgment which is maintained. In the result, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.