1999 PLP 525 (CLC)

(i) Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan v. Syed Tahir Hussain PLD 1962 SC 75, (ii) Majlis Intizamia v. Secretary to Government of West Pakistan PLD 1967 Lah.709, (iii) Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Muhammad Sabir Khan PLD 1991 SC 476, (iv) Khairuddin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1988 SCMR

988. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafri, Additional Advocate‑General for respondents Nos. l to 7 and 9 contended that respondent No.8 held the auction after observing all necessary formalities by the Sindh Privatisation Committee at open place. The petitioners did not participate in the auction of their own accord and the present petition was filed 5 days earlier than the date of auction of the land and since factual controversies are involved, the petition is not maintainable. We have gone through the material placed with the case and minutely perused the documents and case‑law referred to by Mr. Amir Hani Muslim. Annexure "A" to the petition is the notice issued by the Chairman, Sindh Privatisation Committee and published in Daily Dawn in which details of the entire Sindh Government property were shown which was to be auctioned. The land of Agriculture Extension Service Centre Adilpur is also shown in this notice. According to the notice the auction purchaser has to deposit 25 % of the bid amount at the close of auction. In the said notice it has also been provided that a person desirous of participating was required to deposit registration fee of Rs.5,

000. Petitioners in their petition have no where stated or produced any document to prove that actually they had gone to participate in the auction. The auction was held in open place like Baradari at Karachi and not in a building as alleged by the petitioners. The Harap certificates issued by the Farm Manager do not create any right in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, in unequivocal terms respondent No.8 has stated in parawise comments that petitioners, if they are Haris, will not be ejected by the auction purchasers except with due course of law. The provisions of Sindh Land Grant Policy on the face of it are not applicable in this matter because agricultural land involved in this petition is the Government property which as a policy matter Government decided to dispose of through public auction with other properties and the petitioners have no vested right in the land in question. We have also minutely gone through the contents of the petition, parawise comments and the counter‑affidavit filed by the respondent No.

10. We find that nothing has come out in favour of the petitioners. Now we would like to discuss the case‑law referred to by Mr. Amir Hani Muslim learned counsel for respondent No.10. In PLD 1962 SC 75 respondent was served with notice so that he may vacate the Government accommodation occupied by him. That officer thereupon filed a petition before the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench and a writ of certiorari to quash an order in respect of the occupancy by the respondent was issued. Government being aggrieved and dissatisfied preferred an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. Leave to appeal was allowed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court with the following observations:‑‑ "We express our agreement, and do so with respect, with the view that the best occupation by a Government servant of Government‑owned premises allotted to him, i.e. ear‑marked for his occupation, can be no more than a tenancy‑at‑will, which may be terminated by the State at any time without cause shown." In PLD 1967 Lah. 709 learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court has held that where a policy is laid down or directions given for guidance of the officers connected with a department without any statutory backing, no claim of a vested right can arise on account of such directions or rules. In the case reported in 1988 SCMR 988 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the dictum that disputed question of fact could not be determined in Constitutional jurisdiction of a Court which is summary in its character. In the last case reported in PLD 1991 SC 476 the observations of their Lordships are that questions of title of property and possession thereof could not be resolved except through proper trial. Case involving such questions did not qualify for entertainment in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. In this matter admittedly the agricultural land involved is owned by the Government of Sindh and the same was being maintained by the Director- General, Agriculture Extension. Government of Pakistan and Government of Sindh as a policy matter decided to dispose of the Government land, plots and other properties situated in the whole of the Province of Sindh including the Agriculture Extension Service Centre Adilpur. The Sindh Privatisation Committee published the notice of the auction giving full particulars of the properties including location, area and reserved price of the land and the condition of registration fee of Rs.5,000 by any one aspiring to participate iq the bid. Auction was held on 5‑11‑1997 and the respondent No. 10 offered highest bid of Rs.1,40,000 per acre. He also deposited Rs.33,60,000 towards 25% of the total price of the land measuring 96 acres. A perusal of the petition shows that even before the proposed auction, petitioners filed this petition on 31‑10‑1997 i.e. 5 days before the auction. We are unable to believe the version of the petitioners that auction was held in a building and they were not permitted to take part in the auction whereas petition itself was filed 5 days prior to the auction which was held on 5‑11‑1997. The notice about the auction was published in the national and international press viz. Sindhi, Urdu and English newspapers. If the petitioners were serious to take part in the auction they should have paid the registration fee of Rs.5,000 or sent sealed bids with pay order of 25 % of the offered amount to the Sindh Privatisation Committee but there is no such proof or document available on the record. Lastly there is assurance from respondent No.8 that the purchaser or any of the respondents cannot eject the petitioners and deprive them of the right of cultivating the land without due course of law. The case‑law referred to by Mr. Amir Hani Muslim is relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case which we respectfully follow. The petitioners have apparently no vested right to the land involved in the petition and there is no violation of any law so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Apart from this factual controversies are involved in the petition which cannot be gone into by this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. Since the bid in favour of the respondent No. 10 has been accepted, he has to pay up the balance amount to the respondent No.8 which comes to more than Rs. one crore. The delay in payment has prejudiced the interest of respondent No.8 which was purely on account of pendency of this petition. For the foregoing reasons we are of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merits which accordingly is dismissed with no order as to costs, alongwith pending application and recall the order, dated 9‑12‑1997. On 8‑9‑1998 after hearing the parties the petition was dismissed in limine by a short order. Above are the reasons for the same. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑371/K Petition dismissed