2011 PLP 1636 (CLC)

IRFAN ALI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII).

Qazi Muhammad Asghar and others have filed this revision petition assailing the order, dated 28-5-2009, passed by the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan, vide which the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed in limine, being time barred by ly-3m-13d as no plausible justification for condonation of such an inordinate delay was given.

2. In his written arguments, Qazi Abdul Waheed, Advocate/counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioner No.1 as well as predecessor in-interest of petitioners Nos.2 to. 11 (Qazi Muhammad Hassan) owned 42k-14m landed property. Consequent upon an agreement, with the Market Committee, Arifwala, they transferred the said land for construction of Grain Market (Ghalla Mandi), Qabula Sharif. According to the conditions laid down in the agreement, after construction of the shops, the same had to be auctioned and on receipt of the consideration amount, 1/3rd share had to be given to the petitioners. The auction of the shops was made in the years 1987, 2004 and 2007. In 1987, 18 shops were auctioned, and the successful bidders were asked to deposit 1/4th of the auction money at the spot. Remaining 3/4 share was ordered to be deposited in instalments. However, despite repeated notices, the balance amount was not deposited, hence the allotments in their favour were cancelled. In 2004, 60 shops were auctioned, in which a shop was auctioned at Rs.11,00,

000. On 25-2-2007, six shops were auctioned at an average of Rs.22,50,000 while another shop was auctioned against Rs.27,70,

000. On 10-9-2008, two other shops were auctioned, out of which one was auctioned @ Rs.53,00,

000. In pursuance of Government of the Punjab letter No.PD/X-21/72-V, dated 31-12-2002, were restored with the condition that the purchasers should pay the price of the plots according to the prevalent market price.

3. It has further been stated that the District Price Assessment Committee, Pakpattan fixed/assessed the price of a shop (3k-3s) as Rs.3,00,000 per marla but the respondents, who were in liaison with the previous allottees, in collusion with the Revenue functionaries filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan, who ordered for re-assessment of the price. The District Price Assessment Committee, in collusion with the respondents re-assessed the price at Rs.1,00,000 per marla and deprived not only the petitioners but also the Provincial Government as well as Agriculture Department of millions of rupees. It is pertinent to mention that Plot No.78 was auctioned in 2008 against Rs.53,00,000 and at present, the price of the plot/shop is much more. The District Price Assessment Committee has violated the instructions given in the order of the Chief Minister, Punjab regarding price of the specific plots of Grain Market, Qabula. Under Rule 6-A, Land Revenue Rules, 1968, the lower court was not supposed to remand the case for fresh assessment of the price. The petitioners are owners of the impugned land and are entitled to get 1/3rd of the price of the shops, hence before changing the price of the impugned land, they should have been given notice to this effect but neither the petitioner have been issued a notice nor they have been given an opportunity of hearing and while proceeding ex parte against the petitioners, the rates of the shops have been changed/revised by the District Price Assessment Committee, in connivance with the respondents as well as the field staff. It has been prayed, that the revision petition may be accepted, impugned order maybe set aside and the rates of the plots of Grain Market, Qabula may kindly be assessed according to the prevalent market price, as approved by the Chief Minister, Punjab.

4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 24 has also submitted written arguments, which are part of the case file. Respondents Nos.1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 to 22 and 25 did not join the proceedings in this court, despite ordinary as well registered post. Finally a proclamation in the newspaper was published and they were proceeded against ex parte on 10-6-2010.

5. It has been stated in the written arguments by the learned counsel for respondents, mentioned above, that the instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. In fact, the District Price Assessment Committee, in its meeting held on 29-11-2006, assessed the price of the impugned property after establishment of Grain Market, Qabula. The respondents took part in the auction proceedings and being highest bidders, were allotted plots in accordance with the law. The petitioners have nothing to do with the affairs of the District Price Assessment Committee but challenged the auction proceedings with a delay of more than three years. The lower court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners in limine in accordance with law. The proceedings were conducted by the competent authority on the basis of the price assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee. 'It has further been stated when a special law provides specific provision for filing an appeal, the condonation of delay cannot be made under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners had failed to justify the court below on the point of limitations since each and every day in filing of the appeal is to be explained. The valuable rights of the respondents have been accrued and under the provisions of law and dictum laid down by the apex court in the chain of authorities, the inordinate delay cannot be condoned. The order of the lower court is in accordance with law, which may be upheld and the revision petition may be dismissed.

6. Learned predecessor of this court, after hearing the arguments from both sides obtained report from the Administrator, Market Committee, Arifwala regarding sale/auction of plots in Grain Market, Qabula, which is available on record. The Administrator, Market Committee, Arifwala, after giving the background of the whole issue has submitted in his report, produced on 4-2-2011, the Committee would have no objection on the re-assessment of the price of the impugned land/plots.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed in the file. The lower court has dismissed the petitioners' appeal on the basis of law of limitation stating that the petitioners have filed their appeal with a delay of one year, three months and thirteen days and has not been able to justify this delay. The court has also examined all the record and observed that the District Price Assessment Committee, in its meeting held on 29-11-2006 had stated that on the basis of the report of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Arifwala, the market price of the said plots was fixed at Rs.3,00,000 per marla. However, on the basis of the order of the lower court, dated 30-3-2006, the same has been re-assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee as per the report of the field staff and the price has been re-assessed at Rs.1,00,000 per marla. The Committee has further stated that Qabula Sharif is an under developed area and the rates are not very high in this area. On examining the subsequent record of sales in Qabula Sharif and also the above mentioned minutes, dated 29-11-2006, the court feels that the District Price Assessment Committee's re-assessment of the rates from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 is without justification or proper reason. The same Committee had approved the rate at Rs.3,00,000 per marla in 2005 and in a period of one year, they reached a different conclusion reducing the rates drastically. This decision has not only resulted in financial loss to the petitioners but also to the Government exchequer. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) in .his order dated 28-5-2009 has failed to realize that this mater concerns not only the interest of the petitioners but the Government as well. The District Price Assessment Committee's decision dated 29-11-2006 is without proper justification. If Qabula Sharif was an under-developed area in 2006, it was under-developed in 2005 also. At the same time, the record of subsequent sales/auctions of shops/plots in the same market show a trend of prices much higher than Rs.1,00,000 per marls. The court takes notices of these grave contradictions, which may have occurred due to political pressure or corrupt practices or both. Any delay by the petitioners in this matter is condoned and notice is taken of a possible corrupt practice.

8. The revision petition is accordingly accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan to conduct an enquiry into the matter of fresh price assessment that took place on 29-11-2006 and submit the report to this court within two months. The price of the plots under discussion will also be re-assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee in accordance with the market value as it existed in 2006. The District Price Assessment Committee in giving its findings in determining the price will give proper reasons for the same along with documentary support. 9.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan, for further necessary action. H.B.T./4/Rev. Case remanded.