Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 214 of 1955‑56, decided on 18th May 1956, District Multan.

-----

----Irregularity in grant of‑Effect.

Held, that some slight irregularity in the grant of lease of Government land, as, for instance, that the tender forms submitted had not been purchased in the name of the tenderer, does not in law entitle the objecting party to ask for interference with the tenancy arrangements made at the spot by the Collector, especially when such arrangements had taken the form of an open auction.

Ghulam Abbas Jafri for Petitioner.

‑The petitioner has been obtaining annual leases of some Government land in both these cases. This year another person put in tender forms offering a higher rent than what had been offered by the petitioner. When the Collector showed an inclination to accept the highest tender of the other person. the petitioner raised objections on the ground that the highest tenderer had not bought the tender forms in his own name or something of that kind. The Collector decided to arrange an open auction between the two parties because he found that there was some doubt in the matter which had been brought to his notice by the petitioner. In the open auction also, the petitioner did not succeed though the rent bids were very much higher than what had been shown in the tender forms. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner and the latter dismissed his appeal.

The petitioner is not quite clear regarding what he wants me to do. I consider that even if there was some slight irregularity in the matter of the tender forms of the other party, the petitioner does not in law get a right to ask me to interfere with the tenancy arrangements which have been made at the spot. At the worst, there may be an occasion for making an administrative inquiry regarding the manner in which the local officers discharged their duties. If the tenancy was finally arranged on the basis of an open auction, the petitioner is not entitled to seek as order from me to the effect that he should be made a tenant for the year 1956‑57 or that the other person should not be accepted as a tenant for that year.

I notice that the Commissioner's order regarding the rent which should be charged from the other party is not quite clear in its terms. The Commissioner should, therefore, in consultation with the Collector, give him clear instructions regarding what rent is to be charged. A report should also be sent to me showing what the final decision on that point is.

For the reasons stated above, there is no occasion for interfering in favour of the petitioner. Both his petitions for revision are, therefore, dismissed.

A. H. Petitions 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.