2011 YLR 186 (PLP)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

The petitioner has challenged the auction on the basis of proclamation dated 6-2-2010.

2. Learned, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a small landholder who owns agricultural land measuring 19-kanals 10-Marlas situated at Jhuggian Sailan, Tehsil Ferozewala District Sheikhupura, and the said property is scheduled to be auctioned for purposes of excavation of ordinary sand on March, 1, 2010. Further submits that under Rule 208 of the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002, the respondents were bound to give the petitioner an opportunity of negotiating the surface rent of the area to be auctioned for purposes of excavation of ordinary sand. The respondents have not followed the said procedure and in an arbitrary manner scheduled the property for auction of excavation of sand. It is further submitted that this is, even otherwise, violative of the petitioner's rights under the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as enshrined in Article 24.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and without the knowledge of the petitioner his land cannot be put into auction in any manner. The petitioner has also came to know that a notification dated 29-1-2010 has been issued by the order of Governor of Punjab providing that the sale price per 100 square feet for ordinary sand is Rs.200 while `Ghassar' at the rate of Rs.150 per 100 square feet. The lessee will also charge the surface rent payable to the land owners under Rule 208 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rule, 2002 which shall not exceed half of the schedule rate of mineral. There are number of cases where the lease has been illegally granted. The respondents have no authority in any manner to advertise or put into action the property owned and possessed by an individual and same is entirely against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore, writ petition be accepted and auction on the basis of proclamation dated 6-2-2010 be set aside.

4. Conversely learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab assisted by Muhammad Ramzan, Deputy Director, Mines and Mineral, Lahore has vehemently opposed this writ petition and ' has contended that the auction has been suspended due to stay order, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.821 of 2010. The petitioner has' alternate remedy, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The contention of the petitioner that his property is going to be auctioned is incorrect as it is only mines under the surface of land of petitioner which was proposed to be auctioned for two years lease for excavation of sand. Section 49 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides that all mines and mineral shall be and shall always be the property of Government wherever they may happen. The petitioner has not denied that under the surface of land owned by the petitioner and others there is bulk of sand. Record further shows that in a previous Writ Petition No. 15136 of 2009 in which the petitioner was one of the respondent was allowed to participate in the auction. However, if the petitioner has any grievance or if he seeks redressal of his grievance against the respondents, Rule 234 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 provides a remedy of appeal while Rule 235 of the same Act provides the remedy of revision petition and the petitioner can seek redressal of his grievance before the competent authorities. A writ petition is not a substitute of an appeal or revision, therefore, this writ petition is not proceedable. However, if the petitioner, so desires, he may approach the competent forum under the relevant law for the redressal of his grievance. This writ petition is devoid of no merit which is dismissed. H.B.T./I-59/L Petition dismissed.