' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This review petition has been filed against order dated 13-6-2012, passed by this court, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land in question was put to auction and the petitioner offered the highest bid, which was confirmed by the District Collector on 24-3-2011. The petitioner deposited government dues of the land in question and possession was also delivered to him accordingly. Thereafter, the respondents filed a time-barred appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which was illegally accepted. The appeal filed by the petitioner in the Board of Revenue, Punjab was dismissed on 13-6-2013, without appreciating contention of the petitioner. The auction was conducted strictly in accordance with law and after fulfilment of conditions. The petitioner offered the highest bid and also deposited rent of the land into government treasury. Therefore, he is lawfully entitled for allotment of the land in question. The land in question was banjar qadeem at the time of allotment, which has been brought under plough by the petitioner after spending huge amount and putting in hard labour. Finally, it was prayed that the review petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that disputed land was allotted to father of the petitioner under Well (Chah) Scheme, but the lease was not extended and the land in question was resumed in favour of the State and included in the schedule for five years temporary lease scheme. The respondent being occupant of said land was to be given first right of refusal under BOR' s notification dated 13-1-2010, but it was done in secret manner. Previously the said State land was auctioned on 24-4-2010 and Muhammad Ishaq offered bid at the rate of Rs,3,00,000 per acre per annum but the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, cancelled the said auction and caused a huge loss to government exchequer. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan has rightly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and same order has been upheld by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. In the end, he prayed that the review petition may kindly be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, gone through record of the case file including the impugned order and written arguments submitted by the parties. The facts of the case are that State land measuring 80 kanals, situated in Chak No,36/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari, was put to open auction for lease under temporary lease scheme for five years from Kharif 2011 to Rabi 2016. The auction was held on 21-2-2011 and the same was approved on 24-3-2011 by the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari. The present respondent assailed the order dated 24-3-2011 by way of appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, who ordered for re- auction of the State land in question. The operative part is as under:--- ' Arguments heard. Record perused. I have also examined the file regarding lease of state land in question in favour of Muhammad Ishaq son of Said Muhammad. It transpired that the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Vehari earlier leased out. State land in question in open auction on 24-4- 2010 for a period of five years from Kharif 2010 to Rabi 2015 and Muhammad Ishaq offend bid at the rate of 300,000 per acre per annum. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari vide order dated 16-6- 2016 observed that Muhammad Ishaq offered bid due to some misunderstanding as there was no such rate of auction i,e, Rs,3,00,000 per acre and cancelled the auction proceedings and refunded an amount of Rs,7,50,000 i,e, 1/4th of the !Ease money. In this way, the then District Officer (Revenue), Vehari cancelled the auction proceedings dated 24-4-2010 unlawfully and caused a huge loss to the Government Exchequer by refunding an amount of Rs,7,50,000. The land in question has been leased out to the respondent with mala fide intention without participating the appellant or Khadim Hussain. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner, Vehari is directed to release State land in question in open auction after wide publicity in the village and obtaining option from the appellant/illicit cultivator as per instruction of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
' Against the order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before this court, which was dismissed vide order dated 13-6-2013. The operative para of the order is as under:--- "I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the appeal, orders of the lower courts and record available on case file. After going through this whole exercise, I have come to the conclusion that the appeal is worth dismissal. This conclusion is based upon following reasons:--- ' From the perusal of record, it reveals that the present respondent was illegal occupant of the State land in question and according to the notification dated 13-1-2010 such occupants have the first right of refusal in pursuance of the lease auction proceedings but in this case the revenue hierarchy of District Vehari violated the terms and conditions of the above said notification. The said void lease auction proceedings were set aside by the lower court in the best interest of justice.
' No doubt the appeal before the lower court was time-barred but there were plausible grounds for condoning the said delay and which was legally condoned. It is held that no limitation runs against void orders and such void orders can be set aside at any time. - In the present case the auction proceedings were the result of mala fide intention on the part of the present petitioner with connivance of the revenue field staff. The same was not sustainable in the eyes of law and lawfully annulled by the appellate court.
' The first auction of the land in question was held on 24-4-2010 and one Muhammad Ishaq offered bid at the rate of Rs,3,00,000 per acre per annum but the same was not approved by the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, despite the fact that no objection was raised against the said auction proceedings. In the said auction proceedings, the highest bid was offered at the rate of Rs,16,000 per acre per annum. Actually, the second bid was offered on behalf of the family members of the present appellants and they colluded the revenue field staff concerned for grabbing the State land in question at very low rate.
' In the present case, the appellate court examined merits and demerits of the parties and passed order dated 24-1-2012 which is based upon sound reasons. In the said order, the lease auction proceedings dated 21-2-2011 and the order of District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, 24-3-2011, were set aside and annulled the whole auction proceedings. In the said order dated 24-1-2012 a direction was also issued to the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, to lease out State land in question in open auction after wide publicity in the village and obtaining but from the respondent/illicit cultivator as per the instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab.
' The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 4-1-2012 which may allow this court to interfere with the same.
' In view of the above, the appeal is hereby dismissed and order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, dated 24-1-2012, is upheld. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari, for necessary compliance. The case file shall be consigned to the record room after its due compliance/page marking".
' From the above examination, it appeared that the impugned land was leased to the father of respondent under well scheme. The same was resumed vide order dated 18-7-2002 by learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, due to double allotment and order was implemented vide Rapat No,628, dated 15-8-2002 and the land was put into schedule of five years temporary cultivation scheme. This order was not challenged by the respondent. So the same attained finality.
Consequently, the auction was held on 24-4-2010 and one Ishaque offered the highest bid of Rs,3,00,000 per acre per annum.. But this was not approved by the learned District Collector, Vehari.
The respondent's contention that such order was with mala fide intention cannot be bought because rate of Rs,3,00,000 per annum per acre is not only quite unreasonable rather unbelievable.
For ascertainment of reasonable rates of such land in the area, the rates of adjoining villages were also collected during the proceedings, which showed that the bid of the petitioner of Rs,16,000 per acre per anum was highest than the bid in the other villages situated in the area. The detail is as under:--- Sr. No.Chak No.Date of auctionHighest bid amount
1. 38/WB21-12-2012 Rs.12,000
2. 40/WB16-6-2011 Rs.11,000
3. 190/WB23-7-2011 Rs.10,300
4. 40/WB30-7-2011 Rs.11,000
5. 200/EB31-10-2011 Rs.8,500
6. 62/WB21-10-2011 Rs.10,500
7. 220/EB14-10-2011 Rs.11,800
8. 40/WB9-2-2011 Rs.11,000
9. 58/WB21-2-2011 Rs.11,300
10. 56/WB21-2-2011 Rs.13,600
11. 58/WB21-2-2011 Rs.11,400 ' This is suffice to believe that rate offered by the petitioner is quite reasonable.
7. The second auction was held on 21-2-2011. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings along with other participants and offered highest bid and was declared successful bidder. The learned District Collector, approved the bid vide order dated 24-3-2011. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent did not participate in the said auction. Whereas, he was very well in the knowledge of such auction and even approached the civil court for stopping the auction and subsequently withdrew the civil suit.. Actually, the respondent wanted to prolong his unauthorized possession over the impugned land. He neither paid the dues of the government nor allowing the auction of such impugned land to be successful and distracting the matter into unnecessary litigation. Further, the auction was held for a period of five year (2011-16) and as a consequence of auction, the requisite Mutation No,1719 has already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the possession of land was delivered to the petitioner vide Rapat No,502, dated 22-6-2011 and he has deposited the requisite amount in the government treasury. The cancellation of such auction at this belated stage would not only disturb the rights of the petitioner but also cause loss to the exchequer and that, too, for benefit of a person/respondent, who is violator of law and encroached upon the impugned land in sheer violation of resumption order of learned District Collector, Vehari, dated 18-7-2002, which was implemented vide Rapat No,.628, dated 15-8-2002. Hence, the review petition is accepted. The orders of this court dated 13-6-2012, learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, dated 24-1-2012, are set aside and order of learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, dated 24-3-2011 is upheld.
Review allowed.