1984 PLP 1434 (CLC)

S. 10‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑State land Lease of State land in Charagah‑Status quo, effect of‑Posses sion of land given to petitioner as highest bidder in anticipation of appeal oval of lease by District Collector‑On disapproval of auction by District Collector, possession, held, rendered unauthorized‑Any order to maintain status quo will be subject to rights and liability of petitioner and will not create a fresh right. Ch. Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner. This order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 1416/82, Criminal Orig. No. 54‑W/82 and Criminal Orig. No. I1/W‑83. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the State land lying in Charagah was on lease with Aftab Ahmad respondent, when under the changed policy of the Government the further lease of the land was put to auction on 19‑2‑1981. Muhammad Jameel petitioner being the highest bidder was delivered the possession of this property on 10‑5‑1986'. The auction was, however, subject to the approval of the District Collector and the possession was delivered in anticipation of the order of the District Collector. The District Collector, however, refused to grant the approval of the auction but the petitioner remained in possession on account of the orders of different Courts directing the maintenance of status quo. He was ultimately evicted and the petitioner complains that that action was unlawful. 3. It is quite clear that the auction not having been approved of b the District Collector the lease in favour of the petitioner never came into effect. His possession of the land therefore after the auction was disapproved by the District Collector was unauthorised. The learned counsel, has, however, argued the District Collector could not have passed an order refusing to approve the auction as the Board of Revenue had passed an order directing the maintenance of status quo. But this too is of no avail as the Board of Revenue on 2‑11‑1982 found that the petitioner had no case. 4. The learned counsel in the end argues that the petitioner is being proceeded against for unauthorised cultivation and a penalty is to be imposed. He seeks an order against such proceedings on the ground that he was holding the possession of the land in pursuance of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently on account of the stay order granted by different Courts. It is true that the first occupation of the land was authorised by the Collector but after the auction was disapproved by the District Collector the possession of the petitions became unauthorised and any orders to maintain status quo will be subject to the rights and liabilities of the petitioner and will not create a fresh right) and therefore create authorisation in favour of the petitioner which subsequently was found to be illusory. In view of the above considerations, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed: The Criminal Original No. 54‑W/82 and Criminal Original No. 11‑W/83 are also dismissed as there is no justifica tion for proceeding further in them, in view of the judgment in the writ petition. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.