SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN SHAH Versus A.C. SHORKOT

The petitioner Syed Shamshad Hussain Shah has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the orders passed by respondents Nos.l and 2 for the extension of lease of the land possessed by the petitioner in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 5 and likewise extension of lease of land possessed by the respondents Nos.3 to 8 in favour of the petitioner may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. On 20‑10‑1987, a notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and in compliance there of, the said respondents are present and are represented through their learned counsel.

3. Briefly stated, the facts as stated by the petitioner, are that a piece of land measuring 13 Acres of Squares Nos. 36 and 37 Lot No. 14 situate in Chak No. 2/4/R, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, was in physical possession of the petitioner for the last 15/16 years. The said land was obtained by the petitioner on lease basis extending for a period of five years. It is stated by the petitioner that the lease of the land was not renewed. However, the possession of the land remained with the petitioner. It is maintained by the petitioner that the dues of the land have been cleared by him. Later on, the petitioner moved a petition before respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 14‑11‑1985 for the renewal of the lease of the land in his favour. Similarly, respondents Nos.3 to 5 also moved a similar petition for the renewal of the lease of the land which was in their possession on lease basis which land measured 9 Acres and 5 Kanals out of Square No. 37 and 40 situated in the above referred village. The cases of both the parties were recommended by the field staff, vide the provisions contained in the policy letter, dated 23‑10‑1986. Annexure 'D' the lease of the land held by the parties was to be extended. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 extended the lease period in favour of the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land of the petitioner has been leased out in favour of the contesting respondents without any legal basis. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the land in question was disposed of through restricted auction in accordance with the declared scheme of the Government and, therefore, the petitioner as well as the respondents have purchased the land in their possession. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have purchased the land in auction and they are in the cultivating possession of the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very minutely. It has amply been demonstrated before me that the land in question was subjected to restricted auction and the same was purchased by the present contesting respondents and there after the possession of the same was passed on to them. I do not find from the scheme any flaw in the impugned auction of the land in question in favour of the respondents Nos.3 to 5. It is established that a lot comprising some land had been sold to the petitioner and similarly a piece of land had been given to the contesting respondents in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot lay claim a on the land sold out to the respondents in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme issued by the Government. No injustice has been done to the petitioner. The impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law. This being so this petition being devoid of force, is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H . B . T . / S‑204/ L Petition dismissed.