2002 PLP 2406 (YLR)

(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 32 & 34‑‑‑Land in illegal occupation of petitioners‑‑‑Auction of such land‑‑ Contention of petitioners‑bras that neither arty notice of auction was given to them nor proper advertisement was made; and that they were prepared to offer Rs.18, 000 as against the highest bid of Rs.11,500‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Large number of properties including disputed land had been duly advertised in a national Daily‑‑‑Advertisement indicated place of auction, particulars of property with Khasra numbers to be auctioned and revenue e5!ate concerned‑‑‑Auction had been conducted at appointed place on the date indicated in advertisement‑‑‑No notice was required to be issued to petitioner personally as such purpose had been served by advertisement in national Daily‑‑‑Bid sheet showed that auction had been contested between three persons offering different bids ranging from Rs. 6,100 to Rs.11,500‑‑ Subsequent offer above the highest bid duly contested on spot was of no avail to petitioners, which appeared to be an attempt to thwart auction 'Proceedings aimed at prolonging their ,illegal possession over disputed land‑‑‑No ground was made out for interference with auction proceedings of disputed land in favour of highest bidder‑‑ Board of Revenue dismissed revision petition in circumstances. Nemo for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. This petition has been filed against the order, dated 26‑9‑2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, whereby he rejected the petitioners' appeal. Briefly the facts of this case are that according to Khewat Nos.49/50 and 92 of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1996‑97 'of village Kotli Chando Khasra No. 177 measuring 6 Marlas is under the ownership of Provincial Government and in the cultivation column 1/3rd share of this land had illegally been occupied by the petitioners. After proclamation in the press, the A.C./Collector, Sub‑Division, Sialkot auctioned the area in question on 28‑9‑1999 at Head Marala. Abdullah son of Nathey Khan offered highest bid of Rs.11,

500. The auction bid was approved by the D.C./ District Collector on 1‑11‑1999. The auction money was paid by the respondent No.

1. The present petitioners challenged this order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division Gujranwala, who vide impugned order, dated 26‑9‑2000 rejected the same. Hence this revision petition.

3. On the last date of hearing the learned counsel filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1 and the case was fixed for preliminary hearing today in presence of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case has been called. Ch. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate, counsel for the, petitioner is not present. An application has been presented by his clerk reading the counsel to be unwell. The connected record has been produced by the Tehsildar, Sialkot. p Merits of the case have to judge mainly on the basis of the record. No reasonable grounds are made out to further adjourn the case when the petitioner had due notice of the date of hearing through their counsel. A perusal of the record tends to show that sale of evacuee property was duly advertised in national Daily Nawa‑i‑Waqt. The advertisement appeared in the newspaper on 24‑9‑1999 indicating the particulars of the property with Khasra Numbers to be auctioned, the revenue estate concerned and the place of auction. The contents of the file E tend to show that the auction that took place on 28‑9‑1999 was contested between three participants, the highest bid being Rs.11,500 for two Marlas in Kotli Chandoo. The auction proceedings conducted by the Assistant Commissioner were confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on 1‑11‑1999.

4. I have gone through the contents of the revision petition. The main contentions of the petitioner as brought out from the revision petition read that the evacuee land in question was in their use as cattle shed and they were prepared to offer Rs.18,000 as against Rs.11,500 the highest bid for the property. Their further contention is that no notice of auction was given to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that proper advertisement was made in the Press and the auction was conducted by the A.C./Collector. The auction was contested by three participants. He further contended that the respondent has offered highest bid of Rs.11,500 which is far above the market rate and average price assessed by the revenue functionaries. The tact that a large number of properties including the property in question were duly advertised in a national Daily and that the auction was conducted at the appointed place on the date indicated in the advertisement goes to regate the petitioner's plea that he was not issued any notice. No notice was required to be. issued to him personally, the purpose having been served by an advertisement in the national Daily. Mere verbal contention by the clerk of the counsel that he was unwell is not sufficient to adjourn the case when the connected record has been produced and the Tehsildar has also appeared in person. Any subsequent offer above the highest bid duly contested on spot is of no avail to the petitioners as it appears to be an attempt to thwart the auction proceedings aimed at prolonging their illegal possession over the property in dispute. Bid sheet shows that E auction of the property was contested between three persons who offered different bids for it ranging from Rs.6,100 to Rs.11,

500. No grounds are made out for interfering with the auction proceedings of the property in question in favour of the highest bidder. The appeal is accordingly rejected. S.A.K./577/Reve Appeal rejected.