The petitioner, Muhammad Sultan, through this Constitution petition, is seeking renewal of lease of stud land allotted to his (late) father. The writ petition has arisen out of the following circumstances:--
2. The petitioner's father Hon. (Retd.) Mehr Muhammad was allotted stud land measuring 799 Kanals, 5 Marlas in Chak No.21/NB, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, for a fixed period of 10 years from Rabi 1970-71 to Kharif 1980, on Animal Breeding Conditions, vide Board of Revenue, Colonies Department Letter No.774-70/775-CL.I., dated 28-9-1970, communicated vide Letter No.5804/474/ Rem/C, dated 17-10-1970 issued by the General Headquarters, QMG's Branch, Kawalpindi. This lease was governed by the Statement of Conditions of 1970. Later on, petitioner's father was allotted land measuring 603 Kanals, 15 Marlas, in Chak Nos. 12 and 21/NB, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, as 1 re- grant, from Rabi 1980/81 to Kharif 1985 vide Letter No.583-83/625=CLI, dated 22-2-1983, issued by Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, communicated vide Letter No.5804/587/Rem/C, dated 29th March, 1983, issued by GHQ, QMG's Branch, Rawalpindi. It was clarified that this lease was governed by New Statement of Conditions of 1983, which were under the process of preparation. It may be mentioned here that Governor of Punjab, in exercise of powers under subsection (2) of section 10 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (No.V of 1912), vide notification of Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department, No.4292-83/2537/CL-I, dated Lahore the 9th August, 1983, in super session of all previous notifications, issued the fresh statement of conditions for the grant of stud land for animal breeding in the colony area of the Province of Punjab. These conditions are commonly known as Statement of Conditions of 1983. The petitioner's (late) father was given 2ndst re-grant from October, 1985 to October, 1988, vide Letter No.5804/587/Rem/C, dated 29th January, 1987, issued by GHQ, Rawalpindi and 3rd re-grant from Kharif, 1988 to Kharif, 1998, vide Letter No.5804/587/Rem/C, dated 15ih August, 1988, issued by GHQ, QMG's Branch, Rawalpindi. It was specifically mentioned that the grant was governed by the aforesaid statement of conditions issued on 9-8-1983. According to clause 3(2) of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions dated 9th August, 1983, the stud land was allotted for a fixed -period and was non-renewable. The petitioner's father died on 23rd April, 1993 and the lease was transferred in the name of the petitioner, under clause 151 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions dated 9-8-1983 vide Letter No.5804/268/Rem/C, dated 17th August, 1996 issued by GHQ, QMG's Branch, Rawalpindi, for the unexpired period of lease i.e. Till Kharif, 1998.
3. The stud land (clause 3(3) of the Statement of Conditions dated 9-8-1983) is meant solely for breeding of animals for the Pakistan Army. The record shows that the petitioner did not provide required number of animals to the Army. He remained deficient of one imported mare since June, 1997 and was repeatedly requested to make up the deficiency of imported mare in the best interest of the State. The respondents, in this regard, have made reference to Letters No.18/SB/Camp, dated 6th August, 1997 and 27th November, 1998. The letter dated 27th November, 1998 was initiated by the District Remount Officer, Faisalabad, for making up deficiency of the imported mare and for recovery of land produce, in accordance with the clauses 28, 33 and 34 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983. It may be mentioned here that under clause 20 of the said Statement of Conditions, the standing trees, even if planted by the lessee, are absolute property of Government and the tenant is not entitled to any compensation for such trees, at the time of termination of the tenancy or its resumption. The record further shows that the purchase result of the petitioner was highly unsatisfactory, being only 4.54%. An opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, vide Letter No.18/SB/Camp, dated 3rd of March, 1998 by the Director-General Remount Veterinary and Farms, in the office of District Remount Officer, Sahiwal, on 11th of March, 1998 and a final show-cause notice No.5804/269/Rem/C, dated 30th March, 1998, was served on the petitioner for breaches/violations of the following conditions of lease:-- (a)Not residing permanently at the stud farm in violation of clause 13.
(b)Deficiency of residential/stable accommodation and paddocks etc. Not yet completed.
(c)Deficient of 02 CB mares in violation of clause 28.
(d)Purchasing result was 4.54 %, which as per clause 44 was not considered satisfactory.
4. It may further be mentioned here that clause 54 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions dated 9-8-1983 provides the remedy of an arbitration to the aggrieved party, in case of a dispute, through Commissioners of the concerned Divisions (presently District Coordination Officers).
5. On the expiry of the lease period, the tenancy granted to the petitioner stood determined, under clause 50(a) of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions, which governs the petitioner's tenancy/lease and the land reverted back to the State. The Board of Revenue, Punjab/the competent authority, therefore, vide its Letter No.5583-98/3971---CLV, dated 28-12-1998, issued instructions to the concerned Deputy Commissioner for necessary action. Hence the present Constitutional petition.
6. It may also be mentioned here that prior to the institution of the present petition, petitioner previously instituted a Writ Petition No.8229 of 1999, which was disposed of on 31-5-1999 with a direction to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who had already been approached by the petitioner by invoking the alternate remedy, to decide the matter expeditiously under intimation to the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. In para. 22 of the present petition, the petitioner has stated that the Commissioner has failed to pass any order, therefore, it is not in the interest of justice that the petitioner may remain hanging before the same authorities, which have already shown their inability to do justice.
7. It is also pertinently noted that the report (Rozenamcha Waqiati No.420) dated 24-3-1999, reveals that petitioner had also instituted a civil suit but the said fact has been only vaguely mentioned by the petitioner in para. 14 of this petition and the fate of the civil suit has not been disclosed. The petitioner merely annexed photocopies of three notices issued by the Civil Judge, Sargodha, summoning the respondents for 22-2-1999, 16-4-1999 and 25-5-1999, as Annexure 'E', to his previous Writ Petition No.8229 of 1999.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Attorney --General representing respondents Nos.1 to 3, the learned A.A.-G. Representing respondents Nos.4 and 5 and have also seen the record including the parawise comments furnished on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
9. After the expiry of lease period and after the lapse of 6 months thereafter, the possession of the stud land in dispute was resumed from the petitioner vide Report Rozenamcha Waqiati No.420 dated 24-3-1999 and the learned Deputy Attorney-- General, on instructions, has informed that the disputed stud land stands allotted to some one else.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very fact that the petitioner was being repeatedly asked to make up various deficiencies including the purchase of one imported mare and the improvement in the purchasing results, shows that the lease was- renewable, that the petitioner made huge investments in the shape of building out--houses etc. For the maintenance of stud farm and the development of land and as such the lease in favour of the petitioner should have been renewed in routine and in the alternate, the petitioner is entitled to damages as compensation for having suffered huge losses. It has also been argued that since the petitioner stands physically dispossessed, the petitioner may be accommodated through an alternate stud land.
11. The contentions have been opposed. It is submitted by Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the petitioner was lessee for unexpired period of lease under clause 51 of the Statement of Conditions dated 9th August, 1983 (referred above), which was in the nature of a grant and after its expiry, the lease stood determined under clause 50(a) of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions, the lease was non--renewable and subject to certain conditions, in some cases, it is merely re-granted and not renewed and that in any case, renewal of lease is not a vested and enforceable right. Reliance. In this regard, has been placed on Mst. Zainab Khatoon v.
Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 1188, Muhammad Asghar v.
Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 Supreme Court 435 and Brig. Sahibdad Khan v. Secretary, Colonies, Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab, Lahore PLD 2000 Lahore 244. The learned Deputy Attorney --General has also referred to clause 54 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions dated 9th August, 1983, which provides for the remedy of an arbitration, in case of a dispute between the Government and the tenant, as to any of the conditions of the- tenancy or as to any matter or thing in any way, connected therewith including the dispute that whether the lease had been duly terminated, to contend that alternate remedy of going for arbitration is an adequate remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard has teen placed on Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council, Sahiwal through Administrator and others 1999 SCMR 117 and Muhammad Naeem v. District Council, Pakpattan 2000 CLC 73.
12. The petitioner was granted lease, under clause 51 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983, for the unexpired period of lease of his late father, till Kharif, 1998. It was a lease for a fixed term. Clause 3(2) of the said Conditions also provides that the leases are for a fixed period, therefore, on the expiry of the lease period, the tenancy granted to the petitioner stood determined, as provided in clause 50(a) of the said Conditions, which govern the petitioner's tenancy/lease and the land automatically reverted back to the State. The Board of Revenue, Punjab/Competent Authority, therefore, vide its impugned Letter No.5583---98/3971-CL.V, dated 28-12-1998, correctly issued instructions to the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Collector for necessary action. The impugned orders of determination of lease and the resumption of the stud land do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. The State lands are granted by the Government, for the purposes of animal breeding in the colony areas of the Province of Punjab, under clause of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983 and the said clause provides that no person shall be entitled, as of right, to receive a grant and Government shall have absolute discretion in the selection of tenancy.
This shows that the question as to the selection of suitable candidate for the allotment of tenancy was purely internal with the Government and the petitioner was not, as of right, entitled to lay claim to the allotment. He had no right to remain in possession of the stud land after the expiry of the lease and the same could be resumed in accordance with law. In the present case, as mentioned above, the land in dispute was resumed from the petitioner, as far back as in the year 1999, vide report (Roznamcha Waqiati No.420) dated 24-3-1999 and it stands allotted to some one else. The petitioner has failed to show any right of renewal of lease. Clause 3(2) of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983, which governs the petitioner's lease, shows that the lease was non- renewable. It may also be mentioned here that in some cases, the leases are re-granted to the sitting tenants and these are not renewals. The record reveals that in certain cases, the leases were re-granted to the sitting tenants considering their suitability, previous record and capability to discharge the, obligations under the tenancy. The petitioner, on the other hand, failed to achieve the required results under the tenancy, as detailed in para.3 above. The non-exercise of discretion of re-grant in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority is neither arbitrary nor discriminately. It is well-settled that where the Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines a question, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it could have arrived at a different decision as well. This Court in the exercise of its Constitution jurisdiction, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot interfere with discharge of functions entrusted to the Board of Revenue or the Collector of the concerned District, under Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). The report (Roznamcha Waqiati No.420), dated 24-3-1999, reveals that the petitioner had also instituted a civil suit. This fact has merely been vaguely mentioned in para. 14 of the present petition and the fate of the said civil suit has not been disclosed. This shows that the petitioner has already availed alternate remedy. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to damages as compensation for having suffered huge losses due to dispossession in terms of demolition of his building and outhouses constructed by him and his predecessor, on the land in dispute, has also no force. Such-like disputed question of facts cannot be resolved by this Court to the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner has alternate remedies of settling the dispute through arbitration under clause 54 of the aforesaid Statement of Conditions of 1983 or of a civil suit for damages, as the case may be, under the law.
13. In view of the above-mentioned, I see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with the above observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.