1993 PLP 785 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 24‑‑‑L ,ease, cancellation of‑‑‑Land duly leased out under Temporary Cultivation Scheme to respondent, was cancelled from his name for non‑payment of lease money‑‑‑Appeal against such cancellation filed by respondent was accepted by Appellate Authority holding that lease granted to respondent was cancelled in clear violation of S. 24 of the Act‑‑‑After cancellation of lease of respondent, land in dispute was secured by petitioner on lease in an open auction which auction later on was confirmed in name of petitioner‑‑‑Earlier auction made in favour of respondent 5 years prior to subsequent auction in favour of petitioner was at higher rate, while subsequent auction in favour of petitioner was for paltry amount which clearly showed that proper auction proceedings were not conducted‑‑‑Subsequent auction in favour of petitioner not being free from doubt, Board of Revenue rightly directed for re‑auction of disputed land. Mehr Khan Muhammad Vehniwal for Petitioner. Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has impugned the orders dated 9‑7‑1989 and 19‑12‑1990 passed respectively by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore and the learned Member Colonies. Facts in brief are that a land measuring 8 Acres, 3 Kanals and 11 Marlas situated in Chak No.23/D, Tehsil Depalpur was leased out to Muhammad Latif respondent No.l on 19‑9‑1984 for a period of 5 years under Temporary Cultivation Scheme at the rate of Rs.4,950 per annum. Respondent No.l, however, could not pay the lease money and accordingly the A.C., Depalpur through his order dated 17‑4‑1988 cancelled the lease. Respondent No.l filed an appeal against this order and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) through his order dated 9‑7‑1989 accepted the appeal and directed respondent No.l to deposit all the Government dues within one month failing which A.C./Collector would be at liberty to proceed against him. It is pertinent to mention here that after the cancellation of the lease by the A.C. on 17‑4‑1988, the disputed land was secured by the petitioner on lease for 5 years at the rate of Rs.200 per Acre per year in an open auction which was later confirmed on 5‑1‑1989 by the Deputy Commissioner, Okara. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the confirmation order dated 5‑1‑1989 made by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Okara had attained finality and could not be set at naught by the Courts below as the same was not challenged by respondent No.1. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned orders. The auction on the basis of which the petitioner claims his right was made at a time when the lease earlier granted to the respondent No.l was cancelled in clear violation of section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. This was so held by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in his order dated 9‑7‑1989. The observation of the learned Member, Board of Revenue to the effect that the auction in‑favour of the petitioner is not free from doubt cannot be lightly interfered. It is evident that the earlier auction in the year 1984 for this very land was made at the rate of Rs.4,950 per annum while the petitioner secured the same land in the year of 1989 for paltry amount of Rs.1,689 per annum which goes a long way in showing that the proper auction proceedings were not conducted. In these circumstances no fault can be found in the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue who has directed for re‑auction of the disputed property in accordance with the latest instructions. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑3/L Petition dismissed.