' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No,6547 of 2000 filed by Administrator Municipal Committee, Sahiwal, Writ Petition No,6399 of 2000 filed by Province of Punjab through District Collector, Sahiwal and Writ Petition No,6670 of 2000 filed by Sh. Muhammad Asghar as through all the three writ petitions similar order dated 13-4-2000 passed by respondent No,1, Member Board of Revenue has been challenged.
2. As per brief facts of the case the Province of Punjab claimed to be in possession of 8 Marlas and 4 Sarsies land comprising of Khasra No,4700 and according to the Revenue Record it was under the use of Canal Department being Khal for irrigation; that the above said piece of land was situated within the premises/compound of Municipal Committee, Sahiwal ever-since the construction of the premises of the office of Municipal Committee, which after having been abandoned by the Irrigation Department was totally under the control and management of the Municipal Committee, Sahiwal; that it was a most favourable location and perspective for commercial use; that the market price of the disputed site presently was not less than Rs,8,00,000 per Marla and in the 90's its price was not less than Rs,5,00,000 per Marla; that it was also most suitable site for construction of commercial buildings; that many influential persons attempted to get the same through political social and official influences but as this piece of land was situated within the compound of Municipal Committee building and was needed by it, so the Municipal Committee had always opposed its disposal through sale or otherwise in favour of any individual for various reasons as it was required by the Municipal Committee for extension of its building itself and any construction of commercial nature within the compound of Municipal Committee building could create so many problems including traffic and security, as such, this land remained vacant till 1994; that respondent No,3 Mian Asghar Ali, who was a political figure of Sahiwal being an active member of a influential political party and being in position to prevail upon the matter on 30-12-1993 had moved an application to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Punjab for the purchase of the said land, which was marked by the Chief Secretary to the Senior Member Board of Revenue on the same date, who then forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary (Colonies) and the latter also forwarded the application on the same date to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal vide his memo. Dated 30th December, 1993; that the requisite reports were got prepared by the field staff as well as the Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal on 26-1-1994 indicating the availability of said site for sale; that under the political influence of respondent No,3, the District Price Assessment Committee in its meeting dated 20-2-1994 assessed the price of the. Plot contrary to all assessment at Rs,75,000 per Marla and vide letter dated 20-3-1994 through the Commissioner Multan Division, Multan the case was forwarded to the Board of Revenue for approval of the same in favour of respondent No,3; that the Board of Revenue referred the matter to the Chief Minister for relaxation of ban as at the time when the proposal of sale in favour of respondent No,3 was being made there was ban enforced upon such sale by the Provincial Government and after approval from the then Chief Minister, the Board of Revenue granted the sanction for sale of the disputed site vide its letter dated 29-9-1994 whereafter a sale-deed was executed in favour of respondent No,3 on 29-10-1994; that when after the execution of said sale-deed when respondent No,3 had tried to take over the possession of said land, this fact came to the notice of Municipal Committee as well as the public-at-large and a strong agitation was made by them whereafter the District Collector, Sahiwal apprehending the situation of law and order moved to the Board of Revenue vide its letter, dated 7-11-1994 for withdrawal of the orders of the said sale whereas the Administrator Municipal Committee, Sahiwal also conveyed his resentment in respect of the sale of disputed land in favour of respondent No,3 through letter, dated 13-11-1994 as it was obtained through fraud and by concealment of true facts but the then Chief Minister directed explicitly not to open the case of said sale-deed vide letter dated 28-11-1994 issued by the Chief Minister Secretariat, hence, the Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) turned down the request of District Collector, Sahiwal and declined to withdraw the approval of the same through his letter, dated 23-5-1995 that meanwhile the agitation on the public level was going on and in furtherance of that Writ Petition No,4039 of 1995 was filed by the President, Anjuman-e-Tajran, Sahiwal in respect of the sale in favour of respondent No,3 whereupon this Court vide order, dated 11-7-1995 suspended the order of Member Board of Revenue (Colonies), which writ petition was later on admitted for regular hearing and the respondent No,3 was directed not to raise any construction over the disputed site; that during pendency of the same, the then Chief Minister of Punjab visited Sahiwal city and while observing agitation over the sale of the disputed site in favour of respondent No,3 issued direction for cancellation of said sale in his favour and pursuant to the same, the District Collector through letter dated 6-4-1998 moved the Board of Revenue through Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan for revocation of the sale-deed in favour of respondent No,3; that on the other hand, this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No,4039 of 1995 directed the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) to decide the matter within one and half months from the receipt of order of this Court and in compliance of this Court's order, the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) vide his order, dated 4- 7-1998 under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, cancelled the sale of the disputed site in favour of respondent No,3; that respondent No,3 during pendency of the said writ petition when this Court suspended the order of Member, Board of Revenue, moved an application to the Governor of Punjab and without passing any direction on this application the same was forwarded to the Chief Secretary who endorsed the same to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue with a direction to re-examine the case on merits and ultimately respondent No,1 took up the matter and without summoning the concerned parties, while exercising his powers to review the order, set aside the order, dated 4-7-1998 through his order, dated 13-4-2000, which is being assailed through all these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the disputed land was given to respondent No,3 due to political consideration and the reports were also obtained due to political influence; that the pressure on the officials can be visualized from the proceedings taken on the application of respondent No,3 and influence of respondent No,3 on the political side can be ascertained as there was ban on the sale of State land to a private treaty but on his application the then Chief Minister had relaxed the ban and granted approval for sale of said land; that the valuable property of State was sold to respondent No,3 through concealment of facts by playing fraud and the then Deputy Commissioner after the change of Government moved to the Member Board of Revenue, who after examining all aspects of the case as well as summoning all the concerned authorities had cancelled the sale-deed through a lawful order, and that against the said order respondent No,3 also filed a writ petition which was later on dismissed as withdrawn resulting whereby the order had attained the finality and as such the Member Board of Revenue was not empowered to treat the application moved by respondent No,3 as a review petition, which was to be filed in the office under the rules and the same was time-barred having been filed , after about one year and seven months of the passing of impugned order by Member, Board of Revenue. It is also contended that the valuable property which was compound of Municipal Committee was given to respondent No,3 at a cheaper rate and the said sale-deed having been obtained through fraud can be cancelled by this Court. Rely upon PLD 1976 Kar. 1219 and PLD 1977 Lah. 307 in support of their contentions. It is further contended that equal treatment was not given to the petitioners and respondent No,3 and the delay could not be condoned without hearing of the affected parties. Also rely upon PLD 1997 Lah. 676; PLD 1974 Kar. 375, 1994 MLD 603 and 1993 SCMR 1960 in support of their contentions. It is also contended that the influence of respondent No,3 can also be gathered from Annexure "J" through which the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Punjab Lahore had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal that the matter could not be reopened. It is further contended that the review petition under section 7 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 could only be filed within 90 days but the abovesaid application was also filed without any application for condonation of delay and in spite of that no ground was taken in the petition moved to Government of Punjab for condonation of delay the said petition was decided due to political influence in favour of respondent No,3 by the Member Board of Revenue without summoning the other concerned parties,who, were present at the time of passing of earlier order before the Member, Board of Revenue, hence, the order of Member, Board of Revenue having been passed against the principle of natural justice and being hit by the principle of audi alteram partem is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 opposes these writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners are not aggrieved person of the said sale-deed, and the land was rightly sold to respondent No,3 under section 19(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, which matter has been finalized as the Board of Revenue and the petitioner are ceased to interfere in the matter. It is also contended that the land in dispute was not sold to respondent No,3 in a clandestine manner, but the reports from the, relevant quarters were called for and after receiving of the direction of Price Assessment Committee, the Deputy Commissioner being head of said Committee subsequently, wrote a letter to the Member, Board of Revenue for confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No,3 and in the said Committee the Additional Commissioner was also a Member, who was Administrator of the Municipal Committee and the Advocate of the Municipal Committee had also signed it.
5. It is also contended that the Municipal Committee was not owner of the said land, but the same was illegally occupied by it and had also constructed some shops thereon. It is further contended that under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the matter could not be reviewed by the Member, Board of Revenue hence the order passed by it on 4-7-1998 was without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that there was no need for hearing the petitioners at the time of decision on the application of respondent No,3 and District Collector has also filed a writ petition against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue who was subordinate to it and letter was written to the Deputy Commissioner that why he had filed the same as he could have filed an application before the same forum. It is further contended that the impugned order is maintainable and the writ petitions may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the contents of these petitions as well as the documents attached therewith.
7. There is no dispute that respondent No,3 instead of filing an application for sale of land in the proper forum had moved an application to the Chief Secretary, who had referred the matter to the Member Board of Revenue but no application was moved to the District Collector. The only ground taken in the application was that he was an unemployed person and wanted some land to earn his livelihood. He also claimed that the land in dispute might be sold to him. The Chief Secretary without referring any provision of law whether it could be sold to him had referred the matter to the Member Board of Revenue and the Senior Member Board of Revenue sent the matter through the Deputy Commissioner to the District Collector for report. The manner in which the file was moved from one officer to another clearly shows' political influence of respondent No,3 and the report was obtained in the manner that revenue staff had no other work to do. The file was taken door to door and the price was fixed at the rate of Rs,75,000 per Marla. Conversely, Sh. Muhammad Asghar writ- petitioner (Writ Petition No,6670 of 2000) also moved application that he was ready to purchase the land adjacent to the said land at the rate of Rs,2,00,000 per Marla, but the said application was not even entertained by the, then Deputy Commissioner, hence, the preferential treatment was given to respondent No,3, who had exerted the political influence through the Senior Minister and then Chief Minister for the purchase of said land on cheaper rates and had deprived the State as well as the public exchequer from the valuable land. It appears that under political pressure the offices of Deputy Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue had been misused for this purpose.
8. Admittedly the Board of Revenue had allotted the land which could only be allotted by the Collector and the manner, in which, this case was dealt with smacks mala fides on the part of the officials as there was ban imposed upon the sale of State land to a private treaty but on an application moved to the then Chief Minister, he had relaxed the ban immediately for the sale of land to respondent No,3. It is also strange that Municipal Committee was restrained from agitating the matter for cancellation of this sale-deed as through letter dated 28-11-1994 (Annexure "J) the Chief Minister had restrained the Board of Revenue from reopening the matter of sale of land to respondent No,3, which land was sold to him on cheaper rates.
9. Admittedly the disputed land was a State property and it was sold to respondent No,3 through underhand means without publication of any' advertisement about its sale inviting the general public to participate in the said process. Apparently, the whole process' was completed in favour of respondent No,3 through illegal manner by using political influence. Sh. Asghar Ali filed Writ Petition No,4039 of 1995 but in the meanwhile the Government was changed and when the Chief Minister visited Sahiwal City, it was brought to his notice that the valuable property of the State was handed over to respondent No,3 on a very cheaper rate during the ban imposed by the Government of Punjab on the pressure of the high-ups of the Government of Punjab, and he ordered for the cancellation of sale in favour of respondent No,3 due to the protest made by the public-at-large before him. The said writ petition was pending in this Court which was disposed by this Court in the presence of respondent No,3 with the direction to the Member Board of Revenue to dispose of the matter within one and a half months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court, who accordingly, decided the matter after hearing all the concerned parties on 4-7-1988 and cancelled the sale-deed as it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.
10. Against the abovesaid order respondent No,3 moved an application to the Governor of Punjab, on 19-2-2000, who was also a political figure in those days and the said application was referred to the Member, Board of Revenue. The latter without issuing notice to the writ petitioners, who were earlier present at the time of passing of impugned order, dated 4-7-1998 passed by Member, Board of Revenue set aside the same. It has been argued on behalf of respondent No,3 that they were not aggrieved persons, hence there was no necessity to hear them. I have noticed no objection was raised by respondent No,3 at the time of hearing of earlier writ petition filed by Sh.
Muhammad Asghar, in which direction was made to the Member, Board of Revenue to dispose of the matter within one and a half months. The Member, Board of Revenue had heard all the concerned parties before passing order, dated 4-7-1998. However, when the Member, Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 13-4-2000 did not bother to issue notice to Government of Punjab or Municipal Committee or Sh. Muhammad Asghar for affording the opportunity of hearing to them, which was against the principle of natural justice and hit by the principle of audi alteram paltem.
11. Moreover, under section 8(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 the review petition could only be filed within 90 days from the order of Board of Revenue. Admittedly the application was moved by respondent No,3 after one year and seven months of the passing of the earlier order and the same was also not moved to the proper forum but it was moved to the Governor of Punjab, who referred the same to the Member, Board of Revenue, which illegally treated the same as review petition and without any application filed by respondent No,3 to condone the delay, the review application was accepted at a belated stage without giving any reason whatsoever for condonation of delay in filing the review petition by respondent No,3. Even otherwise, the said application was not supported by affidavit of respondent No,3 and no ground was mentioned in the said application for condoning the delay. The review application being barred by time was not maintainable and the impugned order passed on the said application is not sustainable in the eye of law. It do not find any reason to remand the case to the Board of Revenue as < it cannot be compelled to decide the review application afresh which has been proved patently barred by time and respondent No,3 also failed to justify this Court for condoning the delay as the order impugned in the review application was very much in his knowledge on the very first day as it was passed in his presence.
12. For the foregoing reasons, all the three writ petitions are accepted, the impugned order, dated 13-4-2000 passed by Member, Board of Revenue is set aside and the review application filed by respondent No,3 being barred by time is dismissed.
13. Before parting with this judgment it is directed that in future if the said land is intended to be sold then it shall only be sold through open auction after due advertisement and the-petitioners and respondent No,3, can also participate in the said process of sale.