1997 PLP 2676 (MLD)

(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)

‑‑‑‑S. 10(4)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Lease of land in question for five years‑‑‑Petitioner was although declared to be successful bidder and rent for specified period was received from him at the spot, yet he was not in possession of any order under S.10(4). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and auction in question was not approved by Collector of the District‑‑‑Cancellation of lease from the name of petitioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner had no right to agitate his grievance through appeal, revision or Constitutional petition unless approval of auction in his favour was granted by Competent Authority (District Collector)‑‑‑Petitioner had also withheld rent of five crops and was still in possession of land in question even after expiry of lease period‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against cancellation of lease was dismissed with specified costs imposed upon him. Sh. Abdul Aziz for Petitioner. Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Respondents Nos.5 and

6. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1995. Lot No.2 relating to Chak No. 144‑J‑B, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang was put to auction for a period of five years commencing from Kharif 1988 to Rabi 1993 by the Colony Assistant/Collector Sub‑Division Chiniot on 13‑12‑1988. The auction took place at Aminpur Bungalow and Manak s/o Luqman, the petitioner was successful bidder at the rate of Rs.120 per acre per crop. This bid was accepted by the Colony Assistant/Collector, Sub‑Division Chiniot at the spot but was never sent for approval to the District Collector concerned as the same was mandatory under instructions issued by the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department and circulated to all the Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners/ Extra‑Assistant Colonization Officer Thal and Extra‑Assistant Settlement Officers in the Punjab with reference to Board of Revenue tele‑printer message N6.2006‑86/1491‑CLI, dated 13‑4‑1986. The petitioner paid the rent for one year on 11‑1‑1989 in the Treasury without there being any approval from the District Collector. The petitioner has enclosed deposit receipts of five crops i.e. till Kharif 1990 and thereafter no rent was deposited.

2. An area admeasuring 12 acres 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas situated in Chak No.144/J‑B, Tehsil Chiniot inclusive of lot No.2 referred supra was allotted to Mst. Siddiqan daughter of Ibrahim and w/o Wazir Ali under Resettlement of Gujranwala Cantt. Oustees Scheme vide Collector's orders dated 7‑8‑1988 and the same was given effect to subsequent to the auction of the disputed land on 13‑12‑1988. The petitioner agitated his grievance before the Commissioner Faisalabad Division by filing an appeal. It was observed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 20‑5‑1990 that .the deed of conveyance had since been executed in favour of the allottee Mst. Siddiqan and registered, the Commissioner was not competent to interfere with the case and the only remedy available to the petitioner was reference under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The petitioner approached Board of Revenue and Member Colonies thereof vide his order dated 14‑12‑1992 dismissed the appeal.

3. The petitioner has agitated before this‑ Court that Mst. Siddiqan was guilty of obtaining double allotment as against the same entitlement certificate and that the petitioner was entitled to continue in possession till the expiry of his lease period.

4. It is a settled proposition of law that a petitioner is to stand on his own legs and cannot agitate the weakness of the other side to prove his case. The petitioner was no doubt a successful bidder for Lot No.2 admeasuring 11 acres and 5 Marlas for five years and he was declared to be a successful bidder at the spot by the Assistant Commissioner and rent for five crops was received from him but the fact remains that he was not in possession of any order under section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and also 'that the auction for five years of the disputed land was not approved by the Collector of the District. Unless the approval was granted by the competent Authority who was the District Collector in the present case, the petitioner had no locus to file an appeal, revision or writ petition. He had himself paid rent of only five crops whereas he has harvested ten crops till Rabi 1993 and was still in possession of the disputed land, even after the, expiry of Rabi 1995.

5. The petition has absolutely no force and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,

000. A.A./M‑2557/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.