1. ' TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, J.--This is a petition filed under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-- "(a) Declare that the impugned Order NoAUG(CAA)AC/89/1096 dated 5-12-1989 passed by the Respondent No,2 is illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and liable to be quashed.
(b) That the cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.
(c) That any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the petitioner."
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the above petition are that respondent No,1 issued public notice for auctioning of lease of several lands including Waqf Agricultural land admeasuring 370-12 acres situate in Deh 221, Taluka Kot Ghulam Muhammad, District Tharparkar. The auction took place on 22nd October 1989 at about 11.00 a.m. At the office of the respondent No,1. The petitioner bid at the rate of Rs,115 per acre per year, being the highest, was accepted by the Auctioning Officer, subject to the final approval of the Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Sindh as per terms and conditions of the auction notified earlier. The said bid in auction was, however, not approved by the Chief Administrator, Auqaf by his order dated 5-12-1989 and the land in question was ordered to be re- auctioned on 21-1-1990. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the said order of not accepting his bid finally, and ordering re-auction of the land, filed the above petition which came up for admission before our learned brother Wajihuddin, J. Who, while admitting the petition observed that "the petitioner also without prejudice to his rights, may participate in the same re-auctioning as scheduled to be held on 21-1-1990." It is now admitted by Mr.Jehangir, learned counsel for the petitioner before us that the re-auctioning of the land in question has taken place on the scheduled date in which the petitioner did not participate.
3. ' The submissions made by the learned counsel are two fold (i) that he paid the full amount of auction money and thus he was entitled to the lease for a period of three years as provided under rule 7 (1) (a) Waqf Properties (Administration Rules, 1960, (ii) that, in any case, he was entitled to a notice as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7.
4. ' Rule 7(1)(a) relates to the power of the Chief Administrator Auqaf which reads as under: "7. Lease of Waqf properties.--(1) Unless otherwise specifically provided in the scheme settled under rule 5, the following directions with regard to the lease of waqf property shall be deemed to form part of such scheme:--
(a) where the lease relates to land:--
(i) the lease shall be in writing.
(ii) the period of lease shall not exceed three years; provided that the Chief Administrator may grant a lease for any longer period if in his opinion such action is necessary in the best interest of the Waqf property;
(iii) as far as possible the lease shall be made, through auction, in favour of the highest bidder, auction being held on the spot or at such other place close to it as may be easily accessible to the attending bidders;
(iv) the successful bidder shall deposit one year's rent in advance at the time of auction and this amount shall be adjusted towards the rent of the final years."
5. A bare reading of the above will show that it has no access to the point involved in the petition. The rule quoted above provides that a lease shall not exceed for a period of three years unless the Chief Administrator Auqaf may grant a lease for longer period if it was necessary in the best interest of the Waqf property. It also provides that as far as possible the lease shall be made through auction in favour of the highest bidder and that the successful bidder shall deposite one year's rent in advance at the time of auction and the said amount shall be adjusted towards the rent of the final year. The rule quoted above is an enabling provision subject, however, to the final approval of the Chief Administrator as already referred and, therefore, the above rule does not confer a right ipso facto to the lease to the petitioner.
6. ' The second submission of the learned counsel is that one month's notice was necessary which was not given to the petitioner. Reference is made to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 which reads as under:--
(2) The Chief Administrator may, if in his opinion, the continuance of any lease of Waqf property, made after the 4th November, 1961, is not in the interest of the Waqf property, cancel the lease:--
(i) by giving one month's notice to the lessee and the lease shall stand terminated on the expiry of such period; or
(ii) by tendering one month's notice to the lessee and the lease shall stand terminated forthwith on such tender."
7. We are afraid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as the above Rule relates to an existing lease. Admittedly, no lease was executed in favour of the petitioner which necessarily must be in writing as provided in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Rule 7 (supra).
8. We would also like to observe that the petitioner has, inter alia, alleged that the possession of the land in question was received by him from respondent No,1. This fact has expressly been denied by the respondent No,1 in his comments, Chief Administrator Auqaf. Respondent No,4 from whom it is alleged that the possession has been taken over by the petitioner seems to be set up by the petitioner as, according to the comments, respondent No,4 was never a lessee of the land in question. Moreover, the learned counsel stated before us that the auction was to commence from Kharif crop of 1990 which according to him starts from April 1990. In this view of the matter, there was no question of possession of the land in question to the petitioner.
9. ' We, therefore, find no substance in the petition which is dismissed in
2. In view of the above, the injunction application M.A.No,15/90, also stands dismissed as infructuous.