BASHIR AHMAD Versus PROVINCE OF PUNAB

The petitioner Bashir Ahmad has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the respondents may be restrained from disturbing his possession over the leased land till 21‑2‑1988 and further it may be ordered that the respondents may not take any steps for disturbing their possession even after 21‑2‑1988 until the decision has been taken on his prayer for the grant of extension for an additional period of three months beyond 22‑2‑1988.

2. In brief, the case is that the petitioner was declared the highest bidder in an auction held by the District Auction Committee on 3‑7‑1985 regarding an area of land measuring 186.57 acres consisting of two blocks i.e. Nos. 10 and 10/C for the purposes of excavating ordinary sand for a period of one year. The auction price amounting to Rs.1,21,000 was deposited in its entirety plus a sum of Rs.11,540. The petitioner was not handed over the possession of the land till 8‑9‑1986 because of the resistance offered by the landlord.

Accordingly, the Chairman District Council extended the lease period of the petitioner to enable him to obtain the possession. The petitioner has been carrying on his business peacefully when the Director, Industries and Mineral Development, moved an appeal against the order, dated 8‑9‑1986 before the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department. The petitioner raised an objection on the maintainability of appeal. In the meantime, the earlier order, dated 8‑9‑1986 passed by the Chairman, District Council, Jhang, was withdrawn and the petitioner was dispossessed from the land in question. Consequently, the Director Industries and Mineral Development withdrew the appeal on 7‑4‑1987. The petitioner went in appeal against the act whereby he was dispossessed from the land before the Secretary Industries and Mineral Development Department on 6‑5‑1987. The appeal was accepted by respondent No. 1 on 9‑9‑1987 and the case was sent back to the Chairman District Council. On remand, the Chairman, District Council vide his order, dated 21‑9‑1987, extended the lease period for additional five months. The petitioner requested for the extension of three months further. Another order, dated 29‑9‑1987, was issued by the Chairman, District Council whereby the order, dated 21‑9‑1987 was withdrawn. The petitioner moved an application on 16‑11‑1987 before the Chairman, District Council, Jhang for the withdrawal of the order, dated 29‑9‑1987 and for the restoration of the order, dated 21‑9‑1987. The Chairman District Council vide his order, dated 18‑11‑1987 accepted the application of the petitioner and restored the earlier order, dated 21‑9‑1987. Thus, the petitioner was allowed extension of five months in his lease period. The petitioner also filed a suit before the Civil Court on 10‑11‑1987 in which an ad interim injunction was also issued by the learned Civil Court. On 8‑12‑1987, the Additional District Attorney made a statement that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. It was further stated that a representation has been made against the said extension of time and till the decision of the said representation, the possession of the petitioner shall not be interfered with. The District Auction Committee auctioned the area of the petitioner alongwith some other areas on 20‑12‑1987. This order, as stated earlier, has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the existence of the order, dated 18‑11‑1987, the area in question cannot be auctioned. It is stated that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question in accordance with a valid order having been passed by the competent Authority and that he can carry on his business till 21‑2‑1988. Learned counsel urged that auction of the area is wholly without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is contract between the parties and as such, on account of some breach of contract, writ is not competent. Learned counsel contended that a civil suit is the proper remedy which is available to the petitioner and in fact that has been availed of by him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very 'carefully. It is conceded that the appeal has been filed by respondent No.2 which is pending adjudication before the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, in which appeal no date has been fixed as yet. I am afraid, because of the pendency of the aforesaid appeal by respondent No.2 against the petitioner, before a competent forum, this writ petition is not at all competent and is premature on the face of record. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has no valid answer to offer.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that admittedly an appeal on the controversy is pending adjudication between the parties before respondent No.l. A direction is issued to respondent No.l to hear the parties and to dispose of the appeal filed by respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks without fail. With this observation, this petition, being devoid of force, is dismissed as premature. Direction accordingly.

H . B . T . / B‑56/ L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.