Through this order I propose to dispose of the present case as well as:-- (i)Writ Petition No,20037 of 1996 titled "Muhammad Jamil v. Government of Punjab etc."
(ii)Writ Petition No,19941 of 1996 titled "Muhammad Shafiq Government of Punjab etc." as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
2. The dispute relates to a commercial plot, Measuring 7 Marlas 91 sq.ft., situated in Sargodha City, owned by the Provincial Government. It was sold to respondent No,4 by respondent No,1, by private treaty for Rs,35,20,590 and formal conveyance deed was executed in his favour on 6-6-1996.
Thereafter, respondent No,4 started construction of a "plaza' on the site so purchased and it was underway when the present writ petition as well as the above noted connected writ petitions were filed.
3. In this writ petition the pleas taken were that the disputed plot was in fact being used as a tonga stand and respondent No,4, by sheer exercise of political influence, manoeuvred its sale in his favour for a price which was about one fourth of the market price and has thus caused great loss to the public exchequre. It was also asserted that respondent No,4 had also illegally occupied adjoining 8 Marlas of land.
Following prayers were made.
(i)"allotment" of the disputed plot be cancelled as being illegal.
(ii)its original status be restored, and (iii)the land occupied by respondent No,4 in excess of his allotment may be taken from him and allotted to the petitioner against Rs,40,00,000.
4. Report and parawise comments were called from respondents No,2 and 3.
In his comments, respondent No,3 has taken the stance that the disputed plot was in possession of respondent No,4 as a lessee under him for more than 20 years and it has been now sold to him by private treaty by respondent No,1 "after observing all the codal formalities". It was pointed out that tonga stand existed in front of the disputed plot and was causing hindrance to normal flow of traffic and nuisance for the general public and on complaint of general public it was removed.
Another cause shown for removal of the tonga stand was its location in close vicinity of Municipal Corporation Girls High School and the safety of the Girl students required its removal. As regards the alleged "excess land" it was reported that land measuring 9 x 95 instead of 8 Marlas was in possession of respondent No,4 as a lessee for which lease deed has been executed.
No counter affidavit or rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the parawise comments of respondent No,3.
5. In his writ petition (Writ Petition No,19941 of 1996), by Muhammad Shafiq, the main grievance voiced by him is that the sale of the disputed plot was effected secretly and no advertisement appeared for public auction. Prayer was made for declaring the said sale to be illegal so that the plot in question be put to auction for "fetching adequate value".
6. Muhammad Jamil petitioner in his Writ Petition No,20037 of 1996 also made grievance of the fact that the disputed plot had been sold for "petty amount of Rs,35 lacs", though it could fetch much more price. Similar prayer for resumption of the plot was made.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in all the above matters, and have also perused the record produced before me and find that these merit to be dismissed.
It is not disputed that the property owned by the Provincial Government can be sold through, inter alia, private treaty. The disputed plot has been sold by private treaty and no legal flaw could be pointed out in this mode of its disposal. The record produced before me showed that this plot was on lease with respondent No,4 prior to its sale to him. The sale was not effected in a hush hush manner. All the concerned officers, at various levels were involved in the matter and their views about the market price obtained. The Commissioner, vide letter dated 31-10-1995, addressed to Board of Revenue, opined that the sale price be charged at the rate of Rs,3,50,000 per marla, whereas the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that market price was Rs,4 lacs per Marla (vide letter dated 10-10-1995 addressed to the Commissioner). Both these assessments did not find favour with the Government and vide letter dated 14-6-1995 sale of the disputed plot by private treaty was allowed at the rate of Rs,80,000 per marla. On 31-10-1995 the Deputy Commissioner addressed another Communication to Commissioner informing him that the District Price Assessm ent Committee had assessed the market value at Rs,4 lacs per Marla, after spot inspection and in his view "the market rate of that vicinity ranges from Rs, 3, 50,000 to Rs,4,00,000 per Marla". On this the Commissioner recommended to the Board of Revenue to sell the disputed plot at the rate of Rs,3,50,000 per Marla (vide letter dated 31-10-1995). This too proved in- conclusive. He was again directed to get the price re-assessed on which he constituted a committee Comprising (i) Additional Commissioner (Rev.) (ii) Assistant Commissioner (Rev.) and Colony Assistant, Sargodha, who assessed the price at Rs,2,50,000 on 28-11-1995.
After the above exhaustive exercise, finally, Mr. Saleem Murtaza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue signed a summary for approval of Chief Minister, Punjab recommending for grant of permission for sale through private treaty at the rate of Rs,3 lacs per Marla. On receipt of permission sought for, the Board of Revenue informed the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha about the decision of the Government for sale through private treaty at the rate of Rs,3 lacs per Marla. 10% surcharge on account of sale by private treaty and 50% penalty for unauthorized possession was also ordered to be recovered. Condition for payment of penalty at the rate of 50% greatly irked respondent No,4 who made a representation that it be waived as he was a regular lessee. This found favour with Board of Revenue, who after obtaining report from Municipal Corporation that from 1980 upto 1996 respondent No,4 had paid rent, made a recommendation, through another summary for waiver of above penalty. After obtaining approval, as sought for, finally, Board of Revenue vide letter dated 3-11-1996 ordered the waiver of 50% penalty. It is thereafter that respondent No,4 paid the total sale price as well as 10% surcharge and procured the conveyance deed.
8. No illegality could be pointed out in the sale of the disputed plot in the name of respondent No,4 so as to render the same liable to be declared to be without lawful authority. Respondent No,4 had become owner of the plot after paying its sale price and execution of conveyance deed in his name.
9. The Provincial Government being owner of the disputed plot was within its rights to dispose it or to sell through private treaty. The petitioners in these cases appear to be acting as probono publico and they have no vested right to purchase the disputed plot. They cannot be permitted to insist that it be put to auction so as to give them chance to buy it, after cancellation of the conveyance deed in favour of respondent No,4. They have, in fact, no locus standi to intervene in the matter.
10.Resultantly, finding no merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed.