C.M. 857-L-2004.
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- This petition by a third person, who had not participated in the original auction, seeks participation in the auction proceedings. This petition is liable to be dismissed for multiple reasons because on the one hand there is no open biding at the present and on the other hand, the petitioner having not participated in the original auction proceedings has no right to file any such petition, thus, the same is dismissed, being misconceived.
Main Case.
2. Assets of the respondents, the company under liquidation i.e. Mis. Spinning Mills Limited, were ordered to be sold vide order dated 1.10.2004. The Official Liquidators accordingly, invited sealed bids through public notice, published in two daily newspapers, one in Urdu "Jang", Lahore and the other in "English Business Recorder" dated 12.10.2004, reciting for sale (i) Factory including building, machinery and land measuring 148 kanals and 17 marlas duly detailed, (ii) Land measuring 20 kanals, 13 marlas Qila Nos. 2/2, 3 and 5. Bidders were required to submit separate bids/offers for these two sets of properties. Three parties submitted their sealed bids, which were opened by the Joint Official Liquidators in presence of representatives of all the secured creditors. During the process of sale another piece of land measuring 37 kanals owned by the company under liquidation, was recovered and at the time of opening of sealed bids, Joint Official Liquidators informed the bidders that the highest bidder will have to purchase this land as well, at the price offered for additional land measuring 20 kanals, 13 marlas. JOLs submitted Report No 8 detailing all the offers received by them. According to this report.
M/s. Accro Textile Mills Limited offered Rs. 211,500,000/- for factory. And Rs. 2,065,000/- for additional 20 kanals 13 marlas land whereas the next nearest bid was by M/s. Maqbool Usman Fibers (Pvt.)
Limited and its offer for factory was Rs. 192,000,000/- and Rs. 2,312,800/- for 20 kanals, 13 marlas land. Subsequently all the three bidders, improved their respective bids in inter-bidding process.
M/s. Accro Textile came up to Rs. 275,500,000/- plus land at the rate of Rs. 100.000/- per kanal and M/s. Maqbool Usman Fibers improved to Rs. 275,000,000/-. Third bidder i.e. M/s. Faisal Fabrics Limited each time remained at the last with final offer of Rs. 272,000,000/-.
3. M/s. Maqbool Usman Fibers (Private) Limited, the second highest bidder filed an application for permission to further improve its offer (C.M. 796- L-2004). Reply to this petition was obtained and during hearing of the case no body opposed this petition. Even otherwise every bidder has right to raise his offer earlier to its acceptance by the Court. This petition is accordingly allowed.
4. Court had summoned the representatives of all the bidders and in their presence learned counsel for M/s. Accro Textile Mills Limited (the highest bidder) submitted that his final offer of Rs.
275,500,000/- was for .Both sets of properties i.e. The factory and land measuring 20 kanals, 13 marlas and further increase, thereof, is not feasible for the,- bidder. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second highest bidder, M/s. Maqbool. Usman Fibers (Private) Limited came up with an offer of Rs. 280,500,000/- for both the factory and 20 kanals, 13 marlas of land, excluding 37 kanals above-noted land which was offered for purchase at the rate of Rs. 1,12,000/- per kanal. This offer now being the highest and according to the JOLs and all other preent being reasonable, is accepted. Balance bid amount/price shall be paid by M/s. Maqbool Usman Fabrics (Private)
Limited within 15 days where after necessary documents shall be executed in their favour, in accordance with law. The earnest money/advance deposit with Joint Official Liquidators . Of M/s. Accro Textile Mills Limited be immediately returned. Casa now to come up on 10.1.2005 for further proceedings.
Order Accordingly. 200.5 C.L.R. 1395 [Lahore] Present: JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. Amanat Ali Versus Assistant Commissioner with powers of Collector, Narowal and others Civil Revision No. 1149 of 2001, decided on 14th June, 2005.
Civil Procedure Code (V of .1908)--- --S. 115--Specific Relief Act, 1877, S. 54--Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986, Ss. 3, 5--Possession in Shamlat Deh of--Injunction suit--Title of-- Question of--Petitioners' injunctive suit qua land in question stood dismissed by Trial Court and such determination was affirmed by Appellate Court below--Civil revision petition thereagainst in High Court--Validity-- Contention that in the instant case, since petitioner was in possession of suit land and was residing therein, there was no question of any title vesting in private respondents-In circumstance submissions, advanced on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff remained uncontroverted--Record supported petitioner's contention that he was entitle to property in the Shamlat Deh in his own right Civil revision petition allowed.
(Paras.4,6,7)
Plaintiff in possession of Shamlat Deh/Injunctive suit decreed For the Petitioner/Plaintiff. Mian Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate vice Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate.
For the Respondents/Defendants No. .1 to 3, 5, 11 and 12: Kh. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate.
OtherRespondents: ex parte. Date of hearing: 14th June, 2005.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- The petitioner Amanat All filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering in his possession of land measuring 6 marlas, 9 sirshis. The land is situated in shamlat deh. Amanat Ali is one of the owners in the shamlat and claims to be in possession of the property in his own right
2. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 1) has submitted a written statement in which it has been acknowledged that the petitioner is one of the owners in the village. It has merely been stated that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit land. The remaining defendants, who are respondents Nos. 2 to 12 in this petition, submitted in their written statement that they had been allotted land in the village under the 7 Marla Scheme for non-proprietors issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986. The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land, has not been denied by the respondents. They merely assert that they are entitled to possession under the aforesaid scheme.
3. The learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land in dispute had been allotted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 12 under the above-referred scheme.
Learned counsel contends that the decrees of the learned Trial Court dated 28.4.1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17:1.,2001 are contrary to the record and the law. It is argued that the petitioner, being owner in his own right, is in possession of the suit land and is residing in a house constructed thereon. This land, as such, could not possibly have been allotted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 12.
4. Learned counsel has also referred to Section 5 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, wherein title in land allotted thereunder can only be conveyed after construction has been raised by the allottee and he has fulfilled the other conditions of allotment. In the present case, since the petitioner is in possession of the suit land and is residing therein. There is no question of any title vesting in the private respondents.
5. - On the above basis, it is argued that the petitioner was entitled to the permanent injunction claimed by him. The learned Trial Court has proceeded on the premise that the petitioner has manoeuvered to get his name recorded in the khasra girdawari in respect of the suit land. Learned dounsel submits that this is a result of misreading of the record because the names of the petitioner and his father Barkat All appear in the revenue record and even the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 1) has acknowledged that the petitioner is an owner in the village.
The jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Ex.P-1) supports the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 1) is represented but is not a contesting party inasmuch as the written statement submitted on his behalf, in essence, admitted the stance adopted by the petitioner. The other respondents Nos. 2 to 15 have been proceeded .Against ex parte. Irshad Ahmed (respondent No. 16) is represented by counsel but none has appeared on his behalf although the case has been repeatedly called at intervals. In the circumstances, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner /plaintiff. Noted above, have remained uncontroverted. The record has also been seen by me which supports the petitioner's contention that he is entitled to the property in the shamlat deh in his own right.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the learned Courts below have seriously misread the record and, in particular, have failed to consider the khasra girdawari and the jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Ex.P-1) showing the petitioner's right in the suit property. In the circumstances, the impugned decrees of the learned Trial Court dated 28.4.1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17.1.2001 are not legally sustainable. The same are, therefore, set aside. As a result, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for Civil .