The petitioner without disclosing his right, title or entitlement with regard to his possession over the Evacuee Trust Land measuring 68 Kanals and 16 Marlas in village Nandpur Tehsil and District Gujranwala, claimed that respondent No.2 vide letter No.460 dated 18-2-1998 required the land for the period of Kharif 1998 to Rabi 2001 but before his reaching in the office of respondent No.2 on the day of auction i.e. 13-3-1998, he was informed that auction has already been granted to respondents Nos.4 and 5. Aggrieved of auction of lease he filed Writ Petition No.5508 of 1998 which was disposed by this Court on 27-3-1998 with a direction that the petitioner may move an application before respondent No.1 which shall be decided after hearing the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims that his sister Mst. Hafizan Bibi moved an application to respondent No.1, which was fixed on 7-7-1998 but in their absence respondents Nos.4 and 5 took over the possession of house of the petitioner land in dispute, resulting registration of a criminal case vide F.I.R. No.430 of 1998. Thereafter respondent No.1 instead of deciding the application of the petitioner's sister again issued a proclamation for open auction of the land on 3-10-1998 and in spite of hue and cry of the petitioner direction by the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, the auction was fakely confirmed again in favour of the respondents Nos.4 and 5.
3. It is contended that the petitioner is tiller/cultivator of the land and is entitled to continue with its possession but its fake lease, contrary to directions by this Court, is unauthorized. It is further contended that land in question cannot be treated as evacuee trust property, after the target date given by repealing settlement laws i.e. 1-1-1975. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 can only dispose of property by sale through auction which is an uneconomic unit and is not attached to any religious or charitable institution but since the property in dispute does not fall within this category, could not have been auctioned, thus, the same in favour of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 may be declared as void.
4. Heard. Record perused. Undeniably the petitioner is not a lease holder of the land vesting in respondent No.1 which in the Revenue Record, is shown as owned by "Dharam Shala Dhaluram". It is also not disputed that respondent No.1 had been leasing out the land in question for a fixed period and in none of those, the petitioner ever participated. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 have filed their parawise comments wherein, the petitioner has been termed as a tresspasser. The respondents have claimed that as per policy of the "Evacuee Trust Board", the land in question is leased out for three years in open auction which was held on 3-3-1998 after due advertisement and was given to the highest bidder i.e. Respondents Nos.4 and 5. Respondents have also appended with their comments a public notice published in the daily Urdu Newspaper Jang regarding auction of lease rights which shows that no illegality was committed by the respondents in leasing out their land to which the petitioner has no right, to object. This land still continues to be in the control of respondent No.1 by virtue of Evacuee Trust Property (Management of Disposal) Act, 1975 and it is incorrect to say that after repeal of Evacuee Law respondent No.1 cannot claim it as Evacuee Trust Property as a matter of fact settlement laws have no nexus with it.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has no right with the land in question and thus, has no locus standi to maintain the instant Constitutional petition thus the writ as prayed, cannot be issued. This petition has no merits in it and is accordingly dismissed with costs.