' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- This single judgment shall decide the present petition (Civil Petition No,2710-L of 2004) and the connected petitions (Civil Petitions Nos.2711-L and 2712-L of 2004), as common questions are involved in all the petitions and those arose out of a consolidated order passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan.
2. Government of Punjab and another, the petitioners, seek leave to appeal against single order, dated 29-6-2004, whereby the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Multan dismissed their appeals (I.C.As. Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2004).
3. New Fruit and Vegetable Market was established in Municipal Committee Burewala, District Vehari and 19 plots were reserved for open auction with the approval of the Government of Punjab.
The respondents purchased the said plots in an open auction, deposited initial amounts and thereafter without payment of remaining amounts statedly, constructed buildings of shops within the stipulated timeframe. Subsequently, on 16-11-1999, the respondents filed applications before the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab explaining causes for non- payment of balance amount and seeking extension in time to deposit the remaining amount.
Those applications were duly processed and ultimately the Director of Agriculture (E&M), Punjab, vide letter, dated 24-3-2000 allowed the respondents to deposit the amount on certain terms and conditions and subject to payment of penalty amount. Subsequently, Secretary to the Government of Punjab Agriculture Department without hearing the respondents set aside the order, dated 24- 3-2000 passed by the Director, Agriculture and cancelled/restored said plots, vide order, dated 23- 2-2001. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to the respondents informing them that their licenses were cancelled and thus they should surrender the shops. The respondents assailed the said decision through filing constitutional petitions (Writ Petition No,589 of 2003, Writ Petition No,5073 of 2002 and Writ Petition No,5717 of 2001), which were allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan, vide judgment, dated 13-11-2003. The petitioners filed separate Appeals (I.C.As. Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2004), which were dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Multan, vide impugned single order, dated 29-6-2004, hence the present petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as the respondents failed to deposit the remaining auction amount of the plots in question within the stipulated period, therefore, the plots from their names were rightly cancelled, the amounts already paid were rightly confiscated and thereafter the plots/shops vested with the Government of Punjab. He further submitted that the Director, Agriculture had no authority/power to condone the delayed period and allow the respondents to deposit the balance amounts, therefore, the order passed by the Secretary, Agriculture Department on 23-2-2001 was legal and justified.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the available record.
Admittedly, the plots were put to auction, respondents participated in the auction, they were declared successful bidders and at the initial stage they deposited the requisite amounts however, they could not deposit the remaining amounts within the stipulated period and thus, they filed the applications before the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab for restoration of their confiscated amount of Rs,2,00,000 each and permission to deposit the remaining amount. The said applications were duly processed and after exchange of correspondence between the concerned functionaries of the Government, it was ultimately decided by the Director, Agriculture, vide letter, dated 24-3-2002 to restore the plots to the respondents by directing them to deposit the outstanding amount with penalty of Rs,10,000 each. It was not the case of the petitioners that the respondents did not comply with the terms of the said letter. When the terms of the said letter were faithfully obeyed by the respondents, then a vested right accrued in favour of the respondents and the petitioners could not be allowed to retract from the said letter, which was duly implemented and executed and the matter became past and closed transaction. It may be noted that the Director, Agriculture did not extend the period at the spur of moment, but the letter dated 24-3-2000 was issued after the exchange of correspondence between different offices and after its implementation the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab had no lawful authority to unilaterally cancel the said plots from the names of the respondents and that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the respondents, who by that time had become the owners of the plots in question. Their rights in the property, under the circumstances, could not be set at naught and frustrated by the Secretary, Agriculture with one stroke of pen in complete oblivion of fact that a vested right already accrued to the respondents.
On the top of it, the respondents were condemned unheard. The learned High Court, at both the stages, rightly decided the matter in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners; therefore, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view than of the learned High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that how the Director, Agriculture was not competent to extend the period for deposit of the remaining amount. It may be noted that the said Director acted in view of the recommendations made by the Market Committee Burewala. We see no reasons to reverse the impugned order, which is hereby maintained.
6. For what has been discussed above, the present petitions lacking in merits stand dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.