Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to .Appeal No. 76 of 1973, heard on 24th April 1973.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 23rd January 1973, in Review Application No. 52 of 1966, in Writ Petition No. 477 of 1965).

Art. 98‑Writ‑Grow More Food Scheme‑Auction‑ Conditions of auction authorising higher authorities to confirm or not to confirm auction of State land, at their discretion‑Authorities not confirming auction‑Persons giving highest bid, held, did not acquire any valid title to property so as to give them right to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer and others A I R 1954 S C 220 ; Jaghat Singh v. State of Bihar and others A I R 1955 Pat. 483 ; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another P L D 1969 S C 223 ; Dr. A. N. M. Mahmood v. The Syndicate of the University of Dacca and others P L D 1970 Dacca 85 ; Anjuman‑e‑Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and another P L D 1966 S C 639 ; Muhammad Sharif v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another P L D 1968 Lab. 1155 and Hussain Bakhsh and others v. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others P L D 1960 Lab. 869 held not applicable.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th April 1973.

.‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of State land comprising lots Nos. 47 to 53, situate in Chak Ghumarra, Tehsil and District Jhang. The land in question was previously under allotment with tenants under the Grow More Food Scheme, but it was resumed on account of certain complaints, by order dated the 25th October 1962. After resump tion, the land was put up for auction. The petitioners being the highest bidders, purchased the said land for a sum of Rs. 1,44,156 and deposited a sum of Rs. 36,039 equivalent to 1/4th of the price of the said land.

Against the order of the Collector, Jhang, the tenants of land, comprised in lots Nos. 47 to 52, preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha The appeal was disposed of by order dated the 17th April 1963, by the Additional Commis sioner. He held that the lease of the tenants expired in Rabi 1963 and they should not be ejected till then. It is alleged by the petitioners that the possession of the land was delivered to them on the expiry of the period of lease on the 3rd April 1963.

The allottees under Grow More Food Scheme filed a revision petition before the Member, Revenue Board, which was disposed of by order dated the 9th October 1963. The finding of the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the allottees' lease expired in Rabi 1963, was upheld. It was further observed in the order that "those who have had the land on leases under Grow More Food Scheme, which leases continue beyond Rabi 1962, are entitled to purchase the land by private treaty if they fulfil certain conditions." It was further held that the tenants should not be ejected after Rabi 1963 if they are eligible for proprietary rights. An enquiry was held and it was found that the land in question was situated within five miles area of Municipal Committee and, therefore, under the conditions the allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme were not entitled to purchase the land by private treaty.

In spite of this, by order issued vide Memo. No. 10328/63/ 2442‑S. G.‑VII, dated the 16th June 1964, the auction held in favour of the petitioners, was cancelled under the orders of the Governor in respect of lots Nos. 47 to 52 and the land was directed to be put to further fresh auction. The auction with regard to lot No. 53 was, however, confirmed.

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, challenging the order dated the 16th June 1964, cancelling the auction in their favour. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners filed Review Petition No. 52 of 1966, which was also dismissed on the 23rd January 1973. The petitioners seek permis sion to file an appeal against the said order.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the objection of the tenants having been disposed of the auction in favour of the petitioners should have been con firmed. He has further contended that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in cancelling the auction in favour of the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. Admittedly, the auction in favour of the petitioners was not confirmed. According to condition No. 10 of the condition of auction, it was within the discretion of the respondents to confirm or not to confirm the auction. The matter was considered at a higher level and the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that the auction in favour of the petitioners should not be confirmed.

In our opinion, the petitioners, by giving highest bid have not acquired any legal title in the property in dispute and the mere fact that the auction in their favour has not been confirmed does not give them any right to file a writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, has cited number of authorities in favour of the proposition that the bidder in auction is possessed of sufficient interest to maintain writ petition, vide the cases of Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner Ajmer and others (AIR 1954 S C 220) and Jaghat Singh v. State of Bihar and others (A I R 1955 Pat. 483). He has further relied on the cases of Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another (P L D 1969 S C 223) and Dr. A. N. M. Mahmood v. The Syndicate of the University of Dacca and others (P L D 1970 Dacca 85), in support of the proposition that the possession of juristic or legal right is not essential for maintaining writ petition. He has also relied on the cases of Anjaman‑e Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and another (P L D 1966 S C 639), Muhammad Sharif v, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another (P L D 1968 Lah. 1155) and Hussain Bakhsh and others v. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others (P L D 1960 Lah. 869) in support of the proposition that the scheme for auction of State lands has force of law ; arbitrary exercise of power by refusing to confirm the sale without reason is wrongful. Authorities are also cited in support of the proposition that in democratic constitutional set up, the government is under a legal duty to act reasonably and fairly in aid of justice and not to act arbitrarily and capriciously even when taking administrative decisions.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the authorities cited by him are distinguishable. As has been pointed out in condition No. 10 of the conditions of auction, it was the discretion of the respondents to confirm or not to confirm the sale. By exercising the discretion not to con firm the sale they cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.