' Instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed to declare order dated 7-8-1997 passed by respondent No,14 to be illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and against the rules and law.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners Nos.1 to 11 participated in an auction of agricultural land of Evacuee Trust Properties (E.T.P.) situated in Village/Mauza Pail, Tehsil and District, Khushab, held in the Office of Deputy Administrator, E.T.P. Sargodha (respondent No,12) on 5-3-1997. It was an open public auction and a wide publicity through Mushtri Munadi and publication through newspaper in daily 'Nawa-e-Waqt, dated 18-2-1997 was given. All the respondents Nos.1 to 11 were specifically intimated through notices served upon them on 12-2-1997 through special messengers.
They did not raise any objection regarding service of notice either before respondent No,12 or before respondents Nos.13 and 14. Accordingly auction was confirmed in favour of petitioners being the highest bidders. Respondents Nos.1 to 11 filed appeals before the learned Administrator, E.T.P. (N.
Z .), Rawalpindi (respondent No,13) on 22-5-1997 which were dismissed on 27-6-1997. They felt aggrieved of the said order and filed revision petitions with respondent No,14 who accepted the same vide order, dated 27-6-1997 and ordered the re-auction of the property. The petitioners have felt aggrieved of the said order and filed the instant writ petition.
3. Along with this writ petition another writ petition bearing No,1249 of 1999 titled "Sher Baz etc. v.
Pakistan etc." has also been filed. As a common question of law is involved in both the writ petitions, so these are being disposed of by the single judgment.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that auction took place on 5-3-1997 regarding which proclamation was issued in daily 'Nawa-e-Waqt' on 18-2-1997 and Mushtri Munadi was also made in the village concerned, that petitioners participated in the said auction and being the highest bidders were granted the lease rights for three years w,e,f, Kharif 1997 to Rabi 2000, that respondents Nos.1 to 11 were present at the time of auction but had not intentionally participated in the auction proceedings, that the factum of their presence is evident from the fact that all the respondents Nos.1 to 11 moved applications with the Deputy Administrator, E.T.P., Sargodha on 5-3- 1997 for obtaining copies of auction proceedings and the said copies were received by Umar Draz on their behalf on 6-3-1997, that according to section 16 of Evacuee Trust Properties (M&D) Act, 1975 appeal could be filed within 15 days of passing of such order. However the respondents Nos.1 to 11 filed appeals on 19-5-1997 which were patently barred by time and were finally dismissed by respondent No,13 on 27-6-1997, that respondents Nos.1 to 11 felt aggrieved of the said order of respondent No, 13, dated 27-6-1997 and chose to file revision petitions before respondent No,14, that the revision petitions filed by respondent No,4 Abdul Sattar was barred by time as the same was filed on 31-7-1997, that the revision petition of Abdul Sattar/respondent No,4 against the order, dated 27-6-1997 being time-barred made all the revision petitions having been instituted beyond prescribed time, that on this score alone respondent No,14 should have dismissed the revision petitions, that respondent No,14 had the jurisdiction to entertain revision petition under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (M&D) Act, 1975 for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order, that respondent No,14 while passing the impugned order, dated 7-8-1997 has not given any reason for accepting the revision petitions. He vehemently argued that impugned order, dated 7-8-1997 of respondent No,14 is liable to be set aside as it does not contain any specific reason for holding order of respondent No,13 as incorrect, illegal and improper. He, thus, submitted that writ petition be accepted and said order be set aside.
6. Conversely the impugned order has been supported by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 11 and the respondents Nos.12 to 14.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 11 that auction proceedings appear to be fake and concocted as none of the residents of Sargodha or Khushab had participated in the said auction proceedings. He submitted that had the auction proceedings been conducted after due publication in the newspaper as well as Mushtri Munadi, residents of Khushab and Sargodha must have participated in the auction proceedings. He further contended that respondent No,14 had not taken into consideration the fact that they had been occupying the suit land even prior to 1974 and as such had a statutory right to be in possession of the said land and auction proceedings could not take place. He, thus, submitted that impugned order of respondent No,14 be set aside and respondents Nos.12 to 14 be directed to treat them Statutory Lessees.
8. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.12 to 14 has challenged the very maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that impugned order is neither without jurisdiction, nor coram non judice nor void ab initio. He further contended that no loss is going to be caused to the petitioners as well as respondents Nos.1 to 11 if re-auction is held as per order, dated 7-8-1997. He however controverted the stand of respondents Nos.1 to 11 and submitted that they cannot be treated as Statutory. Lessees as they had never agitated this point before the Court of first appeal as well as revisional Court and as such they are estopped by their conduct. He, thus, submitted that writ petitions being devoid of any force be dismissed.
9. The only point which requires determination is if the order, dated 7-8-1997 passed by respondent No,14 fags within the ambit of section 17 of Evacuee Trust Properties (M&D) Act, 1975. A perusal of section. 17 (ibid) reveals that revisional Court has power to summon record and scan the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or its propriety. In the instant case auction was held on 5-3-1997 and the petitioners being the highest bidders were conferred the lease rights for three years from Kharif 1997 to Rabi 2000. The stand of respondents Nos.1 to 11 is that auction proceedings were fake and had not been conducted in accordance with law. Their stand to the extent that auction proceedings were fake is falsified from the very fact that all of them were present and had applied for copies of the auction proceedings to respondent No,12 on the same day. The mere fact that none from the locality had participated in the auction proceedings, as observed by respondent No,14, does not mean that auction proceedings were not held on 5-3-1997.
It is just possible that respondents Nos.1 to 11 were given the impression that if they participated in the auction proceedings they may lose their stand of being Statutory Lessees. The fact that they were present at Sargodha on 5-3-1997 and had applied for copies of auction proceedings held on the same day, clearly proves their presence at the time of auction. It is on the basis of these facts that their appeal was dismissed by respondent No,13 vide order, dated 27-6-1997. The revision petitions filed by respondents Nos.1 to 11 have been accepted by respondent No,14 without specifying any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety in the impugned order, dated 27-6-1997 and the revision petitions have been accepted merely because it is in the interest of justice.
Respondent No,14 could not interfere in the impugned order, dated 27-6-1997 of respondent No,13 if it suffered from any of the defects referred above. Admittedly no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness has been highlighted by respondent No,14 while setting aside the order, dated 27-6- 1997 of respondent No,13. This being the factual position, it is proved that respondent No,14 has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law.
10. For the reasons enumerated above it is proved that respondent No,14 has not passed the impugned order in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him, as such writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is hereby declared to be illegal, void and inoperative upon the rights of the petitioners.
11. As the instant writ petition (Writ Petition No,1720 of 1997) has been accepted so Writ petition No,1249 of 1999 fails and is hereby dismissed.