' MUHAMMD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners call in question the validity of impugned order dated 22-3-2012 passed by respondent No, 1/Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Lahore.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No,2 moved an application under para No,30 of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Properties, 1977 (R.P. Scheme of 1977) before respondent No,1 for purchase of land measuring 16-K bearing Killas Nos.1 and 10, Sq.No,9 situated in village Kahnianwala, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura alleging therein that the land in dispute was owned by the Provincial Government (Sabiqa matrooka) and available for disposal according to the provisions of above mentioned scheme for public purpose.
3. The stance of the petitioners before respondent No,1 was that the disputed land had been allotted to their predecessor-in-interest against claim of mortgagor rights and they had deposited its prescribed price. It was further alleged by them that they had applied to the D.O.R., Sheikhupura for depositing the remaining dues, if any.
4. After hearing both the parties respondent No,1 passed the impugned order dated 22-3-2012 in the following terms:---- "After hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the record, it has been found that the land, in dispute, measuring 16 Kanals bearing Killa Nos.1 and 10 of Square No,9 situated in village Kahnianwala; Tehsil -and District Sheikhupura, is obviously an available property which is to be disposed according to the provisions of above mentioned P.P. Scheme 1977 framed under section 3 of the Repealing Act of 1975. It shall be disposed of through unrestricted public auction by the Auction Committee headed by District Collector, Sheikhupura. Deputy Secretary (S&R), Board of Revenue, Punjab and Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura shall be the Members of the Committee. The highest bid money/amount shall be deposited under head No,G-1 1226 "Deposits in favour of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab." Which shall be subject to final approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab under rules/policy. However, the petitioner shall have the first right of purchase in unrestricted public auction. District Collector, Sheikhupura is directed to complete the process within a period of three months without fail from the receipt of this order. With these observations the case is disposed of."
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order the petitioners filed instant Constitutional petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order of respondent No,1 is illegal and without lawful authority; that respondent No,1 has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing impugned order; that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land since long and their predecessor- in-interest has also deposited the mortgage money but unfortunately they have lost the challan for deposit of money; that the petitioners have also moved an application before the Additional District Collector, Sheikhupura for depositing the sale price/mortgage money; that the petitioners have also filed a civil suit in respect of the disputed property which is pending adjudication before the court of competent jurisdiction and during the pendency of said suit the disputed land cannot be transferred in favour of any person; that respondent No,1 erred in law while passing impugned order.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that the petitioners have failed to prove any document from which it could be inferred that they had deposited any amount towards sale price of the disputed land; that in fact the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had deposited the mortgage money of land measuring 16-K comprising in Killa Nos. 12 and 19 of Sq.No,8 and in this connection Mutation No,284 dated 15-10-1980 was sanctioned in their favour after payment of an amount of Rs,215/- as mortgage money; that after getting proprietary rights of this land they sold out the same to respondent No,2 vide Mutation No,321 dated 20-4-1981; that neither the petitioners nor their predecessor-in-interest had deposited the price of the disputed land as such they have no right qua the same.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that disputed land is available under the R.P. Scheme 1977; that respondent No,2 applied before respondent No,1 for purchase of the same under para No,30(1) of Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Properties of 1977 for public purpose; that the respondent No,1 has passed the impugned well-reasoned order after consulting with the revenue record which needs no interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. The claim of the petitioners on the disputed land is contradictory. On the one hank they are alleging that the disputed land had been allotted to their predecessor-in-interest against a claim of mortgagor rights and he had deposited the prescribed price, whereas, on the other hand they have applied for grant of proprietary rights of disputed land on the basis of their possession vide application dated 20-9-2010 to District Officer Revenue, Sheikhupura which is available on the file as annexure "A". Despite granting number of opportunities by this Court the petitioners remained unsuccessful to show any iota of evidence from which it could be inferred that they have any rights qua the disputed land. Alleged RL.II Nos.19 and 28 on the basis of which the petitioners have been shown as allottee of the disputed land are neither available in the revenue record nor any mutation for transfer of proprietary rights has ever been sanctioned in their names. From the record produced by the petitioners themselves it is apparent that the disputed land is still owned by the Provincial Government and the names of the petitioners are cited in the columns of cultivation as tenants. The stance of the petitioners that challans/receipts of deposit of mortgage money of the disputed land have been lost is not believable. If the petitioners had deposited mortgage money in respect of the disputed land then the natural collary was for the said land to be transferred in their names at the relevant time. Further, according to the revenue reports the disputed land is an awkward plot and is "banjar qadeem" since 1980 and this fact is sufficient to believe that the same has not been cultivated by any one since long.
11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of civil suit the disputed land cannot be transferred in favour of any person is concerned, without commenting on the jurisdiction of the civil court, suffice it to say that the interim relief granted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31-1-2011 was for a specific date and it was not extended by the learned trial Court through a speaking order as such the same having lost its efficacy did not lay any restriction upon respondent No,1 for passing the impugned order.
12. So far as the objection that the disputed land was not available for disposal it would be advantageous to go through Chapter-I of the Scheme for Disposal of Unallotted Evacuee Rural Agricultural Land which provides as under:--- Chapter-1 "In this Scheme unless the subject or context otherwise requires:---
(i) 'Unallotted land' means evacuee land which has not been allotted/ confirmed against verified claims or otherwise disposed of under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, on or before 30-6-1974.
(ii) 'Occupied land' means evacuee unallotted land which is in continuous possession of the occupant for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973.
(iii) 'Unoccupied land' means evacuee unallotted land which is not in possession of any person including the land in adverse possession after Kharif 1971.
(iv) 'Subsisting holding' means holding of a person within the meaning of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972."
13. Viewed in the above context, neither the petitioners have been able to prove that the disputed land had been allotted to them nor they adduced any documentary evidence to show that during the crucial years i,e, four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973 they were in possession of the disputed land as such the disputed land falls within the definition of available land and respondent No,1 was fully empowered to dispose of the same under para No,30 of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Properties, 1977 (R.P. Scheme of 1977) which is reproduced as under:--- "30. Powers to fransfer properties in public interest.--- The Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties), may transfer, in public interest any available property in such manner and on such price as he may deem proper."
' Para No,11 of the Scheme ibid provides as under:-
11. Sale by auction.--- A house, shop or a building site having permanent construction for the transfer of which no application is received and every property that is cancelled from the name of a defaulter and a vacant building site shall be disposed of by unrestricted public auction."
' Vide Gazelle of Punjab, Extraordinary, 28th July, 1984 following additions were made after para No,11.
"Provided that a present occupant of such properly shall have the first right of purchase" subject to the condition that in the case of vacant building sites such right shall be exercisable only, if a permanent construction has been raised. Provided further that in such cases, the total area to be offered for purchase shall not exceed three times the plinth area or 2 Kanals whichever is less."
14. In the light of above reproduced scheme of law it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of occupant of disputed land, therefore, respondent No,1 -while exercising its power under para No,30 of the Scheme ibid rightly passed the impugned order which is neither illegal nor perverse warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.