2010 PLP 1550 (MLD)

This Intra-Court Appeal has been directed against the order dated 31-5-2010 passed by, the learned Single Judge in Chamber.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Armed Forces of Pakistan are owners of land measuring 68 kanals 7 marlas situated in Revenue Estate Pind Sultani, Tehsil and District Attock. The full description of suit and has been provided in para 1 of the Intra-Court Appeal. Respondent No.5 Station Head Quarter through Station Commander, Attock auctioned lease of the land herein mentioned above for sale and purchase of cattle (Cattle Market) for five years. The appellant participated in the auction and gave the highest bid. Thereafter the appellant, was declared as the highest Chamber has erred while declaring that the appellant is disentitled under provision of law to hold the eagle market.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this Intra-Court Appeal and fully supported the impugned judgment.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.5/Station Headquarter offered the suit land in open auction to establish a cattle market. Learned counsel for the appellant has annexed a copy of Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen for the year 1982-83. According to the contents of Register, Haqdaran-e-Zameen, the suit land is the property of Central Government which is in possession of Defence and the suit land has been reserved for Camping Ground for the Army. Admittedly, the suit land is situated in the Revenue Estate Pind Sultani which is situated out side the limit of Cantonment. Another important fact is that the suit land is suited between two Army Cantonments. On the one side there is Cantonment Board Kamrah, Cantonment Board Attock while on the other side it is Cantonment Board Kohat and the suit land is reserved for Camping purposes that at the time of need or at the time of emergency, army may install his vehicles and used the suit land for 'Military purposes'.

6. That the act of respondent No.5 Station Commander, Attock is childish who has auctioned the suit land for a petty amount of Rs.28,00,000 which amount according to the learned counsel for the appellant will be spent on the welfare of army persons. Ignoring this fact that respondent No.5 has auctioned the suit land at the costs of security of this country. The question remains that if the suit land is auctioned for establishing cattle market, it means that at the time of emergency need the army vehicles from both the corners will be at the mercy of people of the village who will be requested to provide the their agricultural land where the Armed Forces installed their vehicle and other allied items.

7. The next important question is that since suit land is not situated within the limit of Cantonment Board so respondent No.5 has no authority to lease out or to auction the suit land. Even if the suit land would have been situated within the Cantonment Board limit. The only authorized person is the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board who after due sanction of the Board can lease out any property. The Station Commander does not figure under the law to indulge in such like matters. Respondent No.5 has exceeded from his jurisdiction.

8. Establishment of cattle market or such like purpose does not fall within the jurisdiction/purview of army authority and it is the only TMA who is empowered under the Punjab Local Government Rules to hold cattle market. SCVI (LG) 2-252/97 dated 24-6-2003 issued under the Punjab Local Government Rules further clarifies that new cattle market will not be established without the prior approval of the Government and the distance between the existing Cattle Mandi and proposed Cattle Mandi should not be less then 15 kilo meters.

9. Further section 54 of the Public Local Government Ordinance, 2001 clauses (n)(m) empowers the TMA to organize cattle fairs and cattle markets.

10. Perusal of section 198 subsection (4) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 elaborates that nothing in section 198 of the- Cantonment Act, 1924 shall be deemed to authorize the establishment of a public market or public slaughter house within the limits of any area administered by any local authority other than the Board without the permission of such local authority or otherwise than on such conditions as such local authority may, approve but in the instant case respondent No.5 has not sought suggestion/permission from the TMA and which is again a nullity in the eye of law.

11. The agreement executed between the appellant and respondent No.5 further reveals that the appellant does not figure in the agreement so the agreement is not a concluded agreement, which is a void, ab initio and cannot be enforced.

12. In the light of above discussion; this Intra Court Appeal is devoid of any force, the impugned order, dated 31-5-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Intra Court Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.U.Y./M-400/L Appeal dismissed.