2001 P Cr (PLP)

M. Shamshair Iqbal Chughtai and Malik Abdul Ghafoor for Respondents Nos. 5 and

6. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2000. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner has obtained the lease of .the suit land in open auction in the year 1973. His lease has been extended from time to time. He cultivated the land till Rabbi, .1995, however, Respondent No. 5 succeeded to obtain the lease of the suit land through auction. He started cultivating the same from Kharif, 1995. Petitioner allegedly got a portion of this land on sub-lease from Respondent No.

5. Upon an application moved by the Respondent No. 5, seeking possession of the land in question, proceedings were initiated and Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bahawalpur after holding an inquiry, sent the file, to A. C./S.D.M./Collector, Bahawalpur for providing police assistance in order to get vacated the land from the petitioner. The A.C./S.D.M./Collector, Bahawalpur, vide his order, dated 24-3-1996 passed an order accordingly, which has now been challenged through the instant writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and petitioner could not have been evicted on the basis of such non-speaking order. It is next contended that the proceedings of ejectment have not been initiated in accordance with law as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before taking the impugned action.

3. The learned A.A.G. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 vehemently opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders.

4. It is an admitted position that the land in question was no longer in possession of the petitioner since Rabbi, 1996. File shows that the petitioner has himself acknowledged before the concerned Revenue Officer; that he, had already evicted the suit land in Rabbi, 1996 and possession' thereof has been delivered to Faiz Bakhsh and Manzoor Ahmad sons of Muhammad. It is also on the record that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace, therefore, the police assistance was sought and vide impugned order, dated 24-3-1996 Respondent No. 2 has accordingly passed a just and fair order, appropriate under the circumstances which calls for no interference. If at all petitioner has been dispossessed unlawfully, as alleged by him, he may file suit for damages but presently no case is made out which may warrant indulgence by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.

5. For what has been stated above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-323/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.