' It is contended that some State land was auctioned in the year 1984 on five years' lease basis and the petitioner was the highest bidder for one lot. The petitioner deposited the security amount at the spot and one year lease money was also deposited later on. He was thereafter put into possession of the land in question. He had hardly started cultivating the said land when on a miscellaneous application moved by one Allah Bakhsh, the then Revenue Minister directed holding of an enquiry. Allegation levelled in the application was that the petitioner and 21 other persons, similarly placed like him had offered three bids on the lower side, with the connivance of the Revenue Staff. After some enquiry the District Collector cancelled the auction. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner failed and he is now before this Court in writ jurisdiction.
2. It is contended that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to pass an order regarding cancellation of the auction which had been earlier approved by him and that under five years' lease scheme the petitioner was entitled to grant of extension of two years after the expiry of five years' lease period and also apply for grant of proprietary rights. It was also claimed that the District Collector could not cancel the earlier auction without seeking, prior approval of the Commissioner for the contemplated auction.
3. I am afraid, there is no force in this petition. The District Collector had exercised the powers having been conferred upon him under section 163 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and no fault can be found with the same. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had directed the A.C./Collector to visit the spot and report about the factual position regarding possession of the disputed land. He reported that possession of the lot in question was resumed on 26-9-1986 and the area had not been cultivated during Kharif 1987 to Rabi 1988. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had agreed with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts that the auction was not conducted in a proper manner and the lots had been disposed of in favour of non-residents of the estate concerned, who were not qualified to participate in the auction proceedings.
4. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it to be .a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction.
5. Dismissed in limine.