' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks acceptance of writ petition and that action of the respondent referring the matter to Punjab Privatization Board for auction of the land leased out to the petitioner till 2001 and the auction allegedly held on 12-5-2001 may be declared to be illegal, void, ultra vires and not binding upon the right of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that land measuring 78 Kanals and 16 Marlas bearing Khasra No,148 Khewat No,274, Khatoni No,801 Chak No,583/GB Jaranwala is State land and was in occupation of the Irrigation Department for the construction of Rest House which was never constructed and the aforesaid property according to the petitioner was leased out to various lessees for cultivation. Petitioner claims that this land was leased out to him in the year 1998. The matter was referred to Punjab Privatization Board for auction of the said land. The petitioner applied to the Member, Board of Revenue for the conferment of the proprietary rights in accordance with the policy of the Government, on which the reports were called for and according to the petitioner the matter is still pending.
3. The petitioner further claims that in the year 2000, the land was again leased out to the petitioner for two years on 1-6-2000 till 31-5-2002 and he deposited the lease amount in the Government treasury. The petitioner further claims that one year's extension has also been given to him for the lease of said land and according to the petitioner that period will be expired on 31-5-2003 and he has already deposited the lease amount for such-period.
4. The petitioner also claims that he is utilizing the land as lessee and the land has been developed and due to his development lease money has been enhanced. Petitioner further claims that the land according to the Government Policy can be leased out to him and the proprietary rights can be conferred upon the petitioner. He also claims that when the matter was referred to Punjab Privatization Board the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,18068 of 1998 in which the stay order was granted and subsequently same was disposed of. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in which status quo order was granted but subsequently it was held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court in this Constitutional petition. Now the petitioner has challenged the auction of land held on 12-5-2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the property in question is in possession of the petitioner' since 1996 and the notification was issued in the year 1998. The petitioner was entitled to the proprietary rights in accordance with the policy of the Government as it was State land and it was in the ownership of the Colony Department, and the Irrigation Department was in possession of the property as user and the instructions of the Board of Revenue are very clear in this respect and the land could not be leased out rather the respondents were bound to confer the proprietary right upon the petitioner rights upon the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. On 21-9-2001 when I verbally announced that the writ petition is dismissed the learned counsel for the petitioner offered that he will not press this petition and offered that he is ready and willing to pay Rs,18,00,000 for the land in dispute in this writ petition which has been auctioned for Rs,16,00,000.To one Muhammad Nawaz.
7. This Court directed the Privatization Board to send their representative alongwith the complete auction record and it was also directed to arrange for appearance of said Muhammad Nawaz for today. Today Muhammaa Nawaz, the highest bidder, alongwith Muhammad Ayub, Secretary, Privatization Board are present. The petitioner and his counsel are also present. On my query to Muhammad Nawaz that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs,18,00,000 against Rs,16,00,000 the bid amount, Muhammad Nawaz offered that he is ready to pay Rs,19,00,000; then both the petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz continued to raise bid in the Court. The last offer of the petitioner was Rs,42,70,000, the bid amount including the amount of Rs,5,70,000 costs of trees etc. On the other hand Muhammad Nawaz Auction purchaser/highest bidder has offered Rs,43,70,000 the total amount of the land including the amount of trees etc. (amounting to Rs,5,70,000).
8. The petitioner has accepted the offer of Muhammad Nawaz and did not raise his bid. The auction amount has been enhanced due to the offer of the highest bidder to Rs,43,70,000. The Privatization Board in directed to receive the said amount from Muhammad Nawaz, the highest bidder of above said land which was previously auctioned by Privatization Board in the sum of Rs,16,00,000 plus Rs,5,70,000 as costs of trees.
9. Now Muhammad Nawaz has agreed to make the total payment of Rs,43,70,000 within one month. For the mode of this amount one half of the total amount shall be paid by him to the Privatization Commission within 10 days from today and remaining 50% amount will be paid within 30 days from today. The possession shall be delivered to the Highest Bidder and as the petitioner who has participated in the bid and has accepted the offer of the highest bidder shall have no objection to hand over the possession to Muhammad Nawaz, as he has failed to purchase the land and has failed to become the highest bidder. All these (bid proceedings) has been taken with the consent of the petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz and both of them are bound to act upon the proceedings as has been held today in this writ petition, and in case Muhammad Nawaz fails to make payment, his deposited money will be forfeited. If Muhammad Nawaz fails to make the payment of Rs,43,70,000 within stipulated period, then Privatization Commission is directed to receive Rs,42,70,000 from the petitioner. In that eventuality the possession shall not be taken from petitioner. With this direction this petition is disposed of.
10. Before parting from this judgment I will condemn the attitude of the Secretary Privatization Commission who was opposing the writ petitioner about the raising of bid and after the bid he changed his view hence, I do not want/take any action against him. The public functionaries are bound to keep in mind the interest of the country and the nation and are bound to above personal interest. The Privatization Commission is also directed to take into consideration the amount, which has been enhanced today through efforts made by this Court, and how the Government property is being sold on cheaper rates by them. They are bound to be careful in future and not sell the Government properties on cheaper rates and shall ensure that all steps shall be taken by them and the properties of the Government shall be sold as per market prices.