Admittedly Board of Revenue received Reference from District Collector , Mianw ali that present petitioners and some others had been allotted State land against the entitlement certificates issued to them on the basis of forgery committed with the khasragirdawari entries and on probe those were cancelled, but in appeals preferred by the affectees/petitioners as well as others, the orders of District Collector were set aside and certificates of entitlement were revived while declaring them eligible for the alternate land of 15-Acres each, as such through the Reference, District Collector requested for the cancellation of allotments being their disqualifications, which came up before Mr. Raza Ali, Member (Colonies), who vide order dated 12.01.1995 was persuaded to conclude that allegations leveled against the affectees with regard to forgery were just and virtuous and District Collector was perfect to declare them ineligible and disqualified, but when leniency was pleaded by the forgers, they were allowed to purchase land on payment of market price as on 10.03.1993 plus 10% surcharge payable through installments. A similar order dated 25.05.1995 was also passed by the same Member while exercising his suo moto powers, but his orders were not implemented compelling the petitioners to approach this Court through Writ Petition No.2261/2009 with the following prayer:- It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that inaction of respondent not considering the case of the petitioners in the light of order dated 12.1.1995, 12.04.1995 and 25.5.1995 and also not giving the benefit of the judgment dated 5.9.2002, passed by this Honouable Court in W.P.No.18631 of 1998 may very kindly be declared as illegal, ultra vires and respondents be directed to finalize case of the petitioners and to grant them proprietary rights in accordance with law. which came up for hearing before his lordship Maulvi Anwarul Haq, as he then was, who vide order dated 06.02.2009 disposed it of with the following conclusion:- Writ petition accordingly is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to take up the application (Annex.G) and to decide the same in the light of said order of learned Member , Board of Revenue dated 25.5.1995 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, preferably within eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order along with copy of this writ petition to be remitted to the said respondents by the office immediately .
Pursuant thereto, the District Officer (Revenue), Khushab on 01.01.2010 requested the Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore for the relaxation of restrictions imposed by BoR, Punjab, Lahore vide Circular dated 27.08.2003 for allotment of subject land, but no further action was initiated, whereupon petitioners approached this Court through the Criminal Original in hand for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent with the following prayer:- It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the instant petition may kindly be accepted and contempt proceedings may kindly be initiated against the respondents and they may graciously be punished exemplary , in the save administration of justice.
Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and appropriate may also be granted.
2. During the pendency of this Petition, on 06.05.2016, this Court issued direction that matter be placed before learned Member (Colonies), BoR, Punjab, Lahore to comply with the directions dated 06.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.2261/2009 through a speaking order in this regard and petitioners were directed to appear before him on 16.05.2016 for further proceedings. Pursuant thereto, ultimately learned Member (Colonies) declined their request vide order dated 18.08.2016, but instead of assailing the vires of that order by means of independent remedy , they are interested that Khalid Iqbal, ADC (G) Khushab, the sole respondent should be punished for not making a favourable order in their favour .
3. Heard and record perused.
4. There is no denial of the fact that petitioners were ineligible and disqualified for the allotment of land, but on account of leniency and willingness pleaded on behalf of the forgers, they were allowed to purchase the disputed property on market price by the learned Member , Board of Revenue vie order dated 12.01.1995. It was not the discretion of the latter to distribute the valuable State property to such like persons, who had maneuvered the certificates through cheating and fraud, rather they as well as the Revenue Officials involved in such like illegal activities were liable to be prosecuted on criminal as well as departmental side. The argument of Mr. Arshad Malik Awan, Advocate for the petitioners that orders of the learned Member had already been endorsed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2009 while directin g the respondent to implement it was not persuasive for the counts; firstly the order dated 06.02.2009 was passed without giving any right of audience to the respondents of that Writ Petition; secondly the orders of the Member might have not been assisted in its true picture before my honourable brother and lastly I am not persuaded by any stretch of imagination that leniency could be extended to the felonious. Each and every authority is obliged to act under the law and law only and especially while dealing with the State property and public exchequer .
5. Mr. Malik failed to highlight any of the act of the respondent to be penalized, moreover the petitioners approached this Court through Constitutional Petition No.2261 of 2009 whereby respondents thereof were directed to take up the application of the petitioners and decide it in the light of aforenoted order of learned Member through appropriate orders and subsequent to filing of Criminal Original in hand vide order dated 06.05.2016 the matter was again placed before learned Member for compliance of order dated 06.02.2009, who explicitly declined the request of the petitioners on some grounds and once findings were handed down by him there was nothing more available for this Court to probe any further. The direction of this Court issued vide order dated 06.02.2009 for passing an appropriate order stood complied with by the learned Member vide his order dated 18.08.2016, so I do not find anything left with this Court for being implemented, however, the legality or otherwise of the said order may be assailed through independent remedy. As by way of passing order dated 18.08.2016 the learned Member has complied with the direction passed by this Court in W.P.No.2261/2009, neither any proceedings in contempt could have been initiated against the respondent nor this Court gave another direction for implementation of said order , which to me was unjust, without jurisdiction and against law, hence instant Criminal Original is dismissed accordingly .