' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayer:-- "It is most respectfully prayed that the respondents may very kindly be directed to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioners for the year 2010-2011 allotted to them on lease and by adjusting the heavy amount already received by the respondents for the year of 2010-.2011.
' It is further prayed that the respondents may very kindly be restrained from auctioning the lands allotted to the petitioner earlier till the final decision of this writ petition and the auction order if any be suspended."
2. Succinct facts required for the determination of the instant writ petition are that in the year 2007 the petitioners came to know through publication that the lands of the respondents are to be given on lease through open auction proceedings. The petitioners participated in the auction proceedings and succeeded to get the lands situated in different Mauzas of District Jhang for the year 2008-2009 and the petitioners made payments of the bid amount.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners in spite of making deposit of heavy amounts were not given vacant possession of the said lands and in this regard, the petitioners had also filed writ petition before this Court wherein respondent No,5 was directed to make arrangements for the delivery of the possession of the leased lands to the petitioners respectively. In spite of the same, the possession of the leased lands was never given to the petitioners and in the meanwhile the lease period expired; as such, the respective paid amounts of the petitioners were adjusted for the next year 2009- 2010 with an additional 10% amount. It is further contended that even then the respondents failed to handover vacant possession of the said lands to the petitioners in spite of the repeated requests and the orders of this Court. It is further submitted that now respondent No,1 has again published an advertisement for auctioning the said lands, which the petitioners have called in-question praying that the said auction cannot be held as they have made payments of heavy amounts which is in the custody of the respondents; therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the lease for the year 2010-2011 on adjustment of the amounts already received by the respondents from the petitioners and the same be adjusted towards the year 2010-2011 as has already been done in the year 2009-2010 with an additional 10% amount.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 opposed the same and has also filed report and parawise comments on behalf of the Auqaf Department. It is contended that the instant writ petition is not maintainable because it involves factual controversies pertaining the alleged mala fides and illegal acts committed by the petitioners, which cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. It is further contended that the Auqaf Department on perusal of documents pertaining to the auction of the previous years in respect of the subject- matter lands, has come to know that fraud has been committed by the petitioners with connivance of certain employees of the Auqaf Department and in this regard a preliminary inquiry has been conducted and it was found that the department has been defrauded of substantial amounts in view of the same, legal proceedings have been initiated and the Director-General Religious Affairs has been appointed to conduct a proper inquiry under the Punjab Employee Efficiency Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006:It has been further directed that proper legal proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate-General also supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Arguments pro and contra have been heard, material made available on record perused.
5. In order to determine the actual lease amount of the lands for the year 2010-2011, it can only be done through fresh auction and thereafter the question of adjustment arises; as such, this writ petition is premature. Moreover, since the respondents have raised certain objections with regard to the previous auctions held, in view of the same certain factual controversies have arisen, which cannot be determined by this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. In this regard reliance is placed on Benedict F.D' Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others 1989 SCM R 918 and Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Forest Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCM R 618.
6. In the above perspective, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.