GHULAM HASSAN Versus State

ORDER

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This revision petition has been filed against order dated 30-10-2013, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, whereby two appeals filed by Ghulam Hassan were dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that State land comprising lot No.3, khasra Nos.7/21 and 22, 16/1, 10, 11, 12, 19 to 22, measuring 80-kanals, situated in Chak No.88, Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala was put to auction by learned Assistant Commissioner, Jalalpur Pirwala vide order dated 7-11-2012. The petitioner offered the highest bid, therefore, the case was forwarded to learned District Collector for confirmation of the bid who vide order dated 22-3-2013 did not confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner. The auction was not confirmed with the observation that learned Assistant Commissioner did not get approval for inclusion of the same in the schedule of auction. This observation is against the instructions of the Board of Revenue contained in letter No.224-10/119-CL-I, dated 13-1-2010. The auction was conducted after fulfillment of all the codal formalities. The petitioner also deposited 1/4th amount of auction i.e. Rs.31,250 and possession was delivered to him. Learned District Collector illegally and unjustifiably did not confirm the auction. The petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the land in question. The impugned orders were passed without consultation of the record and appreciation of the contention of petitioner. While concluding the arguments it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that State land measuring 80-kanals, situated in Chak No.88/M, Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan was put to auction on 7-11-2012 under temporary cultivation lease scheme for a period of 5 years. The learned Assistant Commissioner, Jalalpur Pirwala forwarded the case to the learned District Collector, Multan for approval of the bid offered by the petitioner, who vide order dated 25-3-2013 did not confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner. The concluding para is as under:---

Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioner preferred two appeals before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which were dismissed vide order dated 30-10-2013. The operative part of the order is as follows:---

"I have perused the record of the case. According to the instructions of Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore, a schedule of State lands which were put to auction was approved by a committee and only those lands were to be leased out under that scheme. The land allotted in favour of appellant was not included in the approved schedule. The Assistant Commissioner Jalalpur Pirwala without any permission of the competent authority and justification leased out the disputed land which was not included in the approved schedule in favour of appellant is against law violating instructions of Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore. The lower court has rightly passed the impugned order. The counsel of the appellant could not point out any illegality/irregularity in the impugned order. Moreover, two appeals cannot be filed against the same order.

In view of aforementioned reason, I find no force in this appeal and same is therefore, rejected."

5. The above narration/examination shows that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings, deposited the requisite amount and won the auction. If some lacunae has been pointed out by the authorities, afterwards, the petitioner cannot be punished straightway as he has fulfilled the requirements of the authorities at the time of auction. Hence the revision petition is accepted and impugned orders dated 30-10-2013 and dated 25-3-2013 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and learned Additional District Collector,. Multan are suspended till the time, learned Collector examines the matter to ascertain if the impugned land can be included in the schedule for temporary lease scheme as per instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab. Meanwhile the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the impugned land, if he fulfills the other obligations of auction.

HBT/17/Rev. Petition accepted.