ILYAS ALI vs SECRETARY MINES AND MINERALS PUNJAB, LAHORE And 4 Others
The petitioner challenged an auction proclamation dated 6-2-2010 concerning the excavation of ordinary sand from his agricultural land, arguing that the respondents failed to follow the negotiation procedure for surface rent mandated by Rule 208 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, and violated his fundamental rights under Article 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The respondents contended that the auction was suspended due to a prior stay order and that the petitioner possessed an alternate remedy. The Court held that the government retains ownership of mines and minerals under Section 49 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, regardless of surface land ownership. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner had failed to exhaust statutory remedies, specifically noting that Rules 234 and 235 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, provide adequate mechanisms for appeal and revision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, establishing that a writ petition cannot serve as a substitute for available statutory appellate or revisional remedies.
- Does the government retain ownership of mines and minerals found beneath privately owned agricultural land?
- Can a writ petition be maintained when the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies of appeal or revision?
- Are the procedures for surface rent negotiation under the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, mandatory for the government before auctioning mineral rights?
- Rule 208, Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002
- Article 24, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Section 49, Land Revenue Act, 1967
- Rule 234, Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002
- Rule 235, Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002
ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The petitioner has challenged the auction on the basis of proclamation dated 6-2-2010.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a small landholder who owns agricultural land measuring 19-kanals 10-Marlas situated at Jhuggian Sailan, Tehsil Ferozewala District Sheikhupura, and the said property is scheduled to be auctioned for purposes of excavation of ordinary sand on March, 1, 2010. Further submits that under Rule 208 of the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002, the respondents were bound to give the petitioner an opportunity of negotiating the surface rent of the area to be auctioned for purposes of excavation of ordinary sand. The respondents have not followed the said procedure and in an arbitrary manner scheduled the property for auction of excavation of sand. It is further submitted that this is, even otherwise, violative of the petitioner's rights under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as enshrined in Article 24.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and without the knowledge of the petitioner his land cannot be put into auction in any manner. The petitioner has also came to know that a notification dated 29-1-2010 has ' been issued by the order of Governor of Punjab providing that the sale price per 100 square feet for ordinary sand is Rs.200 while `Ghassar' at the rate of Rs.150 per 100 square feet. The lessee will also charge the surface rent payable to the land owners under Rule 208 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rule, 2002 which shall not exceed half of the schedule rate of mineral. There are number of cases where the lease has been illegally granted. The respondents have no authority in any manner to advertise or put into auction the property owned and possessed by an individual and same is entirely against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore, writ petition be accepted and auction on the basis of proclamation dated 6-2-2010 be set aside.
4. Conversely learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab assisted by Muhammad Ramzan, Deputy Director, Mines and Mineral, Lahore has vehemently opposed this writ petition and ' has contended that the auction has been suspended due to stay order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.821 of 2010. The petitioner has alternate remedy, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The contention of the petitioner that his property is going to be auctioned is incorrect as it is only mines under the surface of land of petitioner which was proposed to be auctioned for two years lease for excavation of sand. Section 49 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides that all mines and mineral shall be and shall always be the property of Government wherever they may happen. The petitioner has not denied that under the surface of land owned by the petitioner and others there is bulk of sand. Record further shows that in a previous Writ Petition No. 15136 of 2009 in which the petitioner was one of the respondent was allowed to participate in the auction. However, if the petitioner has any grievance or if he seeks redressal of his grievance against the respondents, Rule 234 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 provides a remedy of appeal while Rule 235 of the same Act provides the remedy of revision petition and the petitioner can seek redressal of his grievance before the competent authorities. A writ petition is not a substitute of an appeal or revision, therefore, this writ petition is not proceedable. However, if the petitioner, so desires, he may approach the competent forum under the relevant law for the redressal of his grievance. This writ petition is devoid of no merit which is dismissed.